Not another lens thread!!!

[ImageArray]

I'm curious to peoples opinions on what types of lenses I should buy.

I want to focus on portraits, landscapes, and nature (macro) shots.

The only lens I have right now... Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8

I was thinking of getting the Tamron 70-300mm Di Lens - but I dont know very much about lenses and which ones would be suitable for what I want. Should I get a wide angel lens? Ugh! I feel when it comes to lenses that I'm in way over my head. I just don't understand them yet, and the more I read about them, the more confused I get!!

 

[SrBiscuit]

i would consider starting with some kit glass...cheap and decent quality.
i have had nothing but success with my 18-55 kit lens that came with my d40. the 55-200vr aint bad either.

the 70-300 seems like a bit much for what you wanna shoot unless it has a macro function or something (macro is something i know nothing about).

do you have a budget in mind?

people seem to like the sigma 10-20 for landscapes as well as the 14-24 2.8.
these lenses are much more $ than kit glass though.

maybe a nice 85 1.8 for portraits? although you should be doing well with the 50, so i think youre covered with that for awhile.

 

[Overread]

For portrait work you've already got one good lens, the 50mm f1.8. I would suggest (on the portrait front at least) shooting with that for a while and seeing how you feel - do you feel you want to zoom more into the subject or zoom more out - do you find you're always too close or too far away?
If the lens is ideal for you you could even consider upgrading to an improved version such as the sigma 50mm f1.4.

As for the macro/nature I would recomend two options for budget:
1) A sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO macro. This was the lens I started my macro and nature stuff with and for its price its very versatile. It will give you the reach for general nature work and also have a macro function - this is not "true" macro but half life size ( to give an idea the sigma is great with flower sized macro subjects, but not good with fly sized macro subjects) and its long focal length actually makes it quite an impressive macro lens (though I should correctly call it close up not macro).

2) If you feel you want more magnifiaction consider a set of Kenko DG AF extension tubes - these fit onto an existing lens, like your 50mm f1.8 - and reduce its minimum focusing distance; letting you get a more magnified shot of the subject. On the flipside however it also removes infinity focus so with the tubes attached you won't be able to focus on further off subjects - how far you get depends on the tubes and the lens, but a few inches to meters is the most common.
This would give you a setup capable of getting some good shots of things the size of a fly.



Macro stuffs:
True macro - this is a magnification ratio between "the size of the subject as reflected on the sensor : the size of the subject in real life"

So as an example with a true macro lens you get a ratio of 1:1 - subject is reflected at its actual size on the sensor. This is the magnification that a true macro lens gives you (these are prime lenses like your 50mm with only one focal length). A macro zoom gets to around 1:2 which is half life size.
Extension tubes work on the rough maths of:
length of tubes added - divided by - focal length of the lens = ratio:1
so as an example 50mm of tubes on a 50mm lens would be
50/50 = 1:1

or 100mm of tubes on a 50mm lens:
100/50 = 2:1 (twice life size

or 50mm of tubes on a 100mm lens:
50/100 = 0.5:1 which is the same as writing 1:2 - which from above is half life size.

 

[ImageArray]

Ya, I'm fine for portrait for now with my 50mm. The 70-300mm that I'm looking at does indeed have macro function (which is partly why I considered it) and it's relatively cheap ($148 on Amazon).

My budget is basically anything under $1,000. I'll look into the other lenses you mentioned as well. Thank you very much.

 

[ImageArray]

Thank you Overread. That was helpful.

 

[Overread]

With a budget that high you can (if you want ) start higher in the pecking order and get a dedicated macro lens instead if you feel you want to - or a dedicated landscape lens. Starting on budget gear can be a good way to test the waters without a large financial input early on - but for some people who know their areas of interest well it can end up being a stopgap money sink.

I'm not as sure of the US prices as I am of the UK but you might want to look at the Nikon 105mm f2.8 Vr macro as an option for a highgrade lens that will give you the 1:1 macro ratio whilst also being good for portrait work. Cheaper options (that won't have the Vr, but will be comparable optically speaking - ie just as sharp) are the Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm macro. That would give you an ideal macro and portrait lens for your money.

Further if you intend to work with bugs you might consider the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro (recently a new OS version has been announced, but is not on the market yet - OS being similar to Nikons VR technology) and the discontinued (old stock or second hand market) sigma 180mm macro.
The bonus of different focal lengths in macro is that whilst the magnification ratio remains the same at the closest focusing point (ie 1:1, so each will give you the same frame cover) the longer focal lengths will achieve this further away than the shorter ones - for insects this can be a bonus as it means less chance of spooking the insect by getting closer.

 

[ImageArray]

Ok, so I just purchased a Quantaray 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High Speed AF Zoom for a mere $50 lol. I'm looking into buying a few other lenses as well. I have SO MUCH that I want to buy lol!!

 

[KmH]

I want to focus on portraits, landscapes, and nature (macro) shots.

The only lens I have right now... Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8

Three very different requirements. To encompass all three I would recommend the AF Zoom-NIKKOR 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF as it has a 1:2 macro capability from 35 mm to 85 mm.

The 50 mm (75mm equivilent FOV on a Nikon APS-C sensor) is a good start for portraiture, but is a bit on the short side for serious portrait work. The focal length doesn't give enough scene compression to be really effective, but for the cost it should be in every Nikon shooters bag. I have one.

For portraiture prime lenses are desired over zoom lenses. Look at the AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D or if you can swing the cost, the best-of-class-for-bokeh "Cream Machine" AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D IF.

For landscape a wide angle zoom lens like the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED is nice. Better yet, but more expensive is the prime AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8D ED

Macro is a specialty field and depth-of-field gets razor edge thin, necessitating a versatile tripod and a tripod head that allows rail focusing.
The AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR is probably the best bang for the buck, but if you can afford it the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED is tough to beat.

 

[AprilEye]

Ugh! I feel when it comes to lenses that I'm in way over my head. I just don't understand them yet, and the more I read about them, the more confused I get!!

I am in the same boat! I want a zoom lens for distance shots and dont want to spend more than $300. Even in reading everyones responses to your thread my head is spinning! Best of luck to you

 

[ImageArray]

I am in the same boat! I want a zoom lens for distance shots and dont want to spend more than $300. Even in reading everyones responses to your thread my head is spinning! Best of luck to you

Best of luck to you too! LOL

I've taken a photography course, I'm reading "Understanding Exposure" and I'm still confused about the subject. I guess one day it'll just click and I'll have a total "duh!" moment and then I'll get it (At least that's how I'm hoping it happens lol).

 

[Jcampbelll]

For portraiture prime lenses are desired over zoom lenses. Look at the AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D or if you can swing the cost, the best-of-class-for-bokeh "Cream Machine" AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D IF.

I borrowed a 85 1.8 from a friend today and this lens is sweet. Bokeh is very good! :heart: