Picking an everyday lens for my D500

gossamer

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
234
Reaction score
23
Location
New Jersey
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hi,
I've just purchased a D500 to replace my D300, and would like to purchase at least one new lens for it. Most of my pictures are of those around the house with the kids, or perhaps in front of a tree, or of our cats. A friend just asked if I could take pictures of her 1yo at her birthday party.

My current lens is the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6. I also have a 35mm and a 70-300mm f3.5-5.6.

I'd like either a Nikon or Sigma. Something with a fixed aperture, like a 1.8 or even 2.8. I've considered the 24-70mm, 17-55mm 2.8 and 85mm but I really don't know.

I've also considered the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 plus maybe the 24-70mm but that's combined an awful lot of money. Why is that Sigma relatively so much more expensive?

Of course I could rent a lens and see which works best for me, but I hoped for some suggestions on bokeh/DoF, durability, and versatility from the group.

I've linked to a photo I just took with my 70-300mm, in front of a lighted tree, taken at 102mm, 1/60th, f5, 1250. These are the pictures I like to take. She was standing about three feet from the tree. I realize this is a horrible picture, but I feel like it would be better if I was able to lower the ISO and open the lens to something like 2.8.

Dropbox - DSC0958_ReganTree.jpg

Any ideas greatly appreciated.
 
It's a 1.5x sensor camera. So it would work the best in social photography situations, like parties, receptions, family reunions, and so on, with a TRUE wide-angle lens. And a normal lens. And a telephoto option, to narrow the field of view, so it's useful to, well, make a tele-type image.

The 17-55 Nikkor f/2.8 was Nikon's designed lens for high-performance photogra-hy with an APS-C sensor Nikon. Sigma makes a similar lens.

A 24-70mm becomes an awkward lens on 1.5x...at least for "some' people. I dunno...I consider a 35mm a wide-angle lens length....many people do NOT. Nikon's 24-70 is sooooooo flipping loooong. I dislike this size of lens for social photography, and for carrying.

These slow-as-sin top ends...f/5.6....Ugghhh! This really cramps one's style.

Why is the Siggy 18-35 f/1.8 so costly? There is no other option like it. And...it is an f/1.8 ZOOM!And oh my lord, the size of the lens. Second thoughts city.

I dunno....I kind of like the 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 35/2, as high-speed (fast aperture), and amply sharp lenses for people work.

At SHORT lens lengths, yes, an APS-C user CAN open up the lens to f/2.8 to get a lot of light into the camera, so the 20,24,28mm Nikon G-series primes give you f/1.8 wide-open, and f/2.5 or f/2.8 stopped down and better image quality than many zooms can ever hope to give.
 
I've linked to a photo I just took with my 70-300mm, in front of a lighted tree, taken at 102mm, 1/60th, f5, 1250. These are the pictures I like to take. She was standing about three feet from the tree. I realize this is a horrible picture, but I feel like it would be better if I was able to lower the ISO and open the lens to something like 2.8.

Dropbox - DSC0958_ReganTree.jpg

Any ideas greatly appreciated.
I'd have to check my d500 but you shouldn't have much of an issue at ISO 1250.

the (a) 1/60th ..... and (b) a girl Back-Lite in front of a Christmas tree ... those 2 items could be the cause of the problem.

1/60th is too slow for handheld for most people. Even if it's not (taking a pic of a fixed object) you still can't really keep a young girl steady enough for 1/60th to be a sharp image. It looks like Dora's face and words above are in focus better than the words below (probably moving at the waist) and her face moving too (which is not in as good as focus as the tree).

The other problem is the girl has a bright back light to her. The Christmas tree. You exposed (metering) for the Christmas tree and not the girl. Of course, if you expose for the girl you'll blowout the Christmas tree lights. Solution ... put a flash on top of the D500 to balance out the exposure for the girl and the tree. You could try your D300 with the popup flash and see if you can balance out exposing for the girl, at a higher shutter, lower ISO and still get the tree lights to look nice.

I don't know if others have access to DropBox .. they seem to want everyone to have a login now so I attached it.
unspecified.webp
 
Last edited:
I would say pick up the sigma you mentioned or a 50mm. And who wears a Halloween shirt on Christmas?! Jp. I would bump up that shutter speed and you'll probably have to do the same with ISO if your aperture is wide open.
 
The lens I have on my D500 most of the time is a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Although not quite as broad of a range as your 16-85, it's a great normal range on DX, and the constant f/2.8 aperture makes it a no-brainer. The price is a bit steep compared to the Sigma version, but the build just felt more solid to me, and you can often find them used for a decent price.

The 85mm f/1.8 lens is fantastic for portraits and is one of my favorite lenses, but is definitely not an everyday lens. The 24-70 will work just fine on the D500, but you'll be missing the wide range, which is something I definitely use quite a bit.

Lastly, you asked about a shot taken with a 70-300. Due to it's smaller max aperture, it's really better suited to outdoor and other well-lit scenes, and is not a good low-light performer. However high ISO is really not an issue with the D500 - you should be able to get pretty usable shots at ISO 6400, or even 12,800 if you don't need to recover too much shadow detail. My 2 cents - for this shot, it looks like a little fill light would go a long way to light the subject.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top