Photography noob.. should I upgrade/buy another lens?

[Incompetent]

I'm a 15 year old male.... bought my Nikon D500 around two months ago. I have a standard AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.4-5.6G lens.
I also have photography classes at my school this year.

SO, I was wondering... should I buy another lens?

Anyway...

• I haven't yet discovered what I like to photograph, but I believe I enjoy taking photos of scenery/wildlife/etc, more than anything else.. but of course, I'm still experimenting. Those things aren't always available to photograph unfortunately - so I definitely have to explore with more things.
• I have thousands of dollars, but I'm quite conservative - and not having a job any more makes that situation worse. I'm willing to spend up to $200 on a new lens???? Not retail price of course.... I'm fine with buying something used, or just anything at a cheaper price from a site like eBay.
• Don't have a tripod.

The D5000 doesn't seem too popular either. Will it be able to support the lenses the other models can?
Should I buy a lens with VR or not? I'm hoping it to be something like... 55-200mm?

I know, I'm probably a pain in the ass... but any help would be appreciated, thanks. :>

 

[IByte]

The d5k is not a bad camera to start in your age, and price range. I would save the money and ask your parents to chip in for your birthday for the 55-200, used flash and/or a tripod.

Once you know which genre(s) you want to concentrate in then start investing in those disciplines.

Right now, understand the triangle, watch as many tutorials as possible, have fun and good luck.

 

[techniker]

Generally speaking, if you have to ask then you probably don't need it.

The 55-200mm lens like that would make your camera more versatile, for sure. But if you don't know where your limitations are with the current lens, I suggest using the crap out of it until you find your ability is being limited by the short focal length. Having an other lens will make learning how to use your camera more complicated and if you're taking a photography class it may be ideal to just have one lens.

I've owned my DSLR for less than a year (May) and have held off on buying new lenses. I think it's been a good idea because my choice in lenses has changed quite a bit from the 50mm 1.8 "nifty fifty" to higher quality, more expensive prime and wide angle lenses. Because I have not purchase any lenses, I still have the cash I would have spent and can use that toward buying something more expensive.

VR is like image stabilization, right? I have done some research about mostly Canon lenses (because I have a canon camera) and the general consensus is that the lenses with image stabilization is desirable. I have it in my EF-S 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS and it seems to work well, plus it has a switch so I can turn it off if I need to.

 

[Designer]

Only you should spend your money. Your D5000 is considered an "entry level" DSLR, and they are usually packaged with that lens, so you've got a kit that many other people also have. The camera and lens are capable of making some good photographs, so there is no need to belittle your equipment.

As opposed to purchasing a second lens, I recommend that you purchase a good speedlight or a good tripod, either of which will get you started in a mode of photography that you cannot do without them.

The 55-200mm VR is also a good choice if you think you need more "reach" than your present lens has, although you will still be hand-holding and still no flash, so your photographs will be substantially no different than you can make now.

 

[pgriz]

If spending money makes you feel good, by all means, spend the money.

If, on the other hand you want to improve your photography, then there are three components: 1) Finding/seeing/making an image with potential; 2) capturing that potential, and 3) presenting the vision to others. The first is independent of the camera, and is, in some ways, the most difficult. The second relies on the equipment, and on your skillful use of that equipment. That means using the right exposure, the right focal length, the right framing, the right lighting, etc. The third is usually the post-processing - cropping, sharpening, adjusting the tone levels, white balance, etc. to present a pleasing image to the viewer.

You need all three to have good images. Spending money on equipment, unless you have a specific reason for making a purchase, isn't going to help much, if the problem is one of "seeing" good image potential. If you look at the images that consistently get lots of comments and many views, they are usually interesting visually, tell a story of some kind, and are relatively simple in their construction. It takes time to cultivate an eye that recognizes the visual value in what would normally be seen as an ordinary, unremarkable scene. And that skill is developed by observing the world and practicing your ability to capture your unique observations.

 

[Incompetent]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily talking about RIGHT now... but in the future when needed. I know either way I would put off buying one, due to my conservatism of money..
I have other friends who have much more niftier DSLRs and lenses than mine, but their photos are no better than the ones I take on my D5000.. so at the end of the day, I might as well work with what I have until I actually need another.

Thanks ya'll, will put everything into consideration.

 

[gregtallica]

Yeah, I'm not necessarily talking about RIGHT now... but in the future when needed. I know either way I would put off buying one, due to my conservatism of money..
I have other friends who have much more niftier DSLRs and lenses than mine, but their photos are no better than the ones I take on my D5000.. so at the end of the day, I might as well work with what I have until I actually need another.

Thanks ya'll, will put everything into consideration.

Do any of them shoot with Nikon? You can always borrow lenses (assuming they have the same brand/mount as you).

You can always rent lenses, too, to try them out. If wildlife is your thing, the experts around here say get something longer, like the 55-300. Maybe find a local camera store that rents lenses, check one out and take a hike. One of the stores around here, what you pay for when renting the equipment can even be put toward the purchase of that item if you decide you like it when it's all said and done.

 

[Incompetent]

Do any of them shoot with Nikon? You can always borrow lenses (assuming they have the same brand/mount as you).

You can always rent lenses, too, to try them out. If wildlife is your thing, the experts around here say get something longer, like the 55-300. Maybe find a local camera store that rents lenses, check one out and take a hike. One of the stores around here, what you pay for when renting the equipment can even be put toward the purchase of that item if you decide you like it when it's all said and done.

Nope, unfortunately. They all use Canon EOS DSLRs.... those pricey ones that cost $900-1200 (and the only thing they mainly photograph are of themselves!).

Ahhh, okay then. That's quite true - don't want to interfere with anything. I'll surely be able to find a place to rent lenses.... a place to hike (or just an interesting place to photograph scenery), however, may be a little difficult. I'll figure out something within the next few months though. Thank you! Would have never thought about it.

 

[Solarflare]

For the record, there is no D500 ... not yet, anyway.

As long as you dont miss anything yourself, the 18-55mm is obviously fine. Its a very versatile lens - but for example for me, these kit lenses are just too dark. I rarely use anything else but my 35mm f1.8 DX on my camera.

 

[greybeard37 9]

The 35mm f/1.8 would be a great choice.