Which is a better lense for me? The Nikon 50mm, or the Nikon 55-200mm lense?

[jennifer33]

Hi! I'd like to get some opinions on what would be a better lense for my Nikon D3100. I want to get into fashion photography and want a better lense than my 18-55mm, for shooting outdoors. I really like the dreamy, ethereal look, so I want a lense that will give good depth of field.

The 50mm is $120, and the 55-200mm is $140.

Or will my 18-55mm be adequate? The only thing that bothers me is that with the 18-55mm, I have to get extremely close to a subject, for example, if I'm photographing a flower, I have to get my face right up next to it, and I'd like a lense that can give good depth of field without me having to get so close.

Thank you so much for your help!

 

[EPPhoto]

Out of your two choices, I vote for the nifty fifty!

 

[tirediron]

By 'good DoF' do you mean lots of DoF or little DoF? The 50mm (75mm equiv FoV) would be my choice of the two, although long glass is considered desirable for it's shallow DoF. The Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 might something to consider. It often goes for ~$700 used.

 

[KmH]

Unfortunately, some here at TPF don't know as much as they think they do, and often give people bad or incomplete advice.

Point #1. The $120 - AF 50 mm f/1.8D will not auto focus on your D3100, because neither your D3100 nor the lens have an auto focus motor in them. I have used the $120 - AF 50 mm f/1.8D many times in manual focus mode, and your D3100 will still light the in-focus indicator in the viewfinder when focus has been achieved.

By the way. None of Canon's DSLR cameas have a focus motor in them either, and haven't had since about 1987.

Point #2. Many wind up with focus issues using a wide aperture lens like the a 50 mm f/1.8 because the DOF it produces can get very shallow. Plus, the lens focuses the sharpest when stopped down a couple of stops, like to f/4. That makes the background less blurry.

So, if you want a 50 mm f/1.8 and auto focus, you'll have to get the new, much more expensive, AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G lens. The AF-S 55-200 mm f/4-5.6G will auto focus on your D3100.

I do a lot of portraiture and hardly ever use a 50 mm lens, and often use 200 mm, because I usually have enough room to back away from what I am focusing on.

 

[rpm]

i vote for the nifty fifty purely on an educational perspective. you can learn a lot from a 50 1.8 but like KmH has pointed out you need to consider the more expensive G version if you want auto focus or learn to really be spot on when shooting at 1.8 with a manual focus (its a skill that has its merits to develop - imo)

otherwise the 55-200 would be a far more versatile lens and the better option when comparing to the 50 1.8G in terms of value for money.

 

[Ginu]

I think it honesty depends on what you're looking to shoot
The nifty fifty is nice to have as it is a cheap lens but it is not a wide angle lens by any mean and not a huge telephoto either. The best is to work on a collection of lens and use them as required and as the time goes on you should change certain lenses for better or pro quality ones (however those cost a lot so they are not small investments).

Good glass will last forever if they are cared for properly and it holds their value.

Nifty fifty will give you the best DOF for the $ spent and for any macro work you will have to get pretty close to the subject regardless on what kind of lens you're using. Don't forget your camera does not have an internal focusing motor so you're actually looking at the 50mm 1.8 G which is 300ish...

 

[tirediron]

Unfortunately, some here at TPF don't know as much as they think they do, and often give people bad or incomplete advice...

Do tell...

 

[g-fi]

I think the more important question is how much money are you willing to spend on lenses right now? If money isn't an issue, get the AF-S 50mm, it's one of those lenses in which you will almost ALWAYS find a use for it. If the 50mm is too much, go for what you can afford, but keep in mind that at some point it might be more cost effective to save up for a body that can use the more inexpensive glass out there (and autofocus it) and split the difference with good quality used glass.

By fashion photography do you mean like commercial photography, runway, model portfolio work? You might also want to look at the 85mm 1.8 and 35mm, on either side of the 50, they might give you a little more reach without resorting to the kit zoom.

The lack of a focus motor in the consumer Nikons can be really limiting when budget is an issue (and you aren't looking to manual focus everything). There's nothing wrong with manual focusing, but at some point you're going to want that fast AF glass and it's just more expensive. I downgraded to a D50 awhile ago to get more functionality out of my lenses and I've never regretted it. I won't purchase a new body until I move to full frame and start collecting new glass.

 

[412 Burgh]

Hi! I'd like to get some opinions on what would be a better lense for my Nikon D3100. I want to get into fashion photography and want a better lense than my 18-55mm, for shooting outdoors. I really like the dreamy, ethereal look, so I want a lense that will give good depth of field.

The 50mm is $120, and the 55-200mm is $140.

Or will my 18-55mm be adequate? The only thing that bothers me is that with the 18-55mm, I have to get extremely close to a subject, for example, if I'm photographing a flower, I have to get my face right up next to it, and I'd like a lense that can give good depth of field without me having to get so close.

Thank you so much for your help!

I have the Nikon D3100 and the AF-S Nikkor 50MM 1.8G lens and they work well together! I'm please with the lens, I got it off amazon new for 229. I may not being using it to the best of my ability yet, I'm still trying to learn the fundamentals.

 

[Ginu]

The lack of a focus motor in the consumer Nikons can be really limiting when budget is an issue (and you aren't looking to manual focus everything). There's nothing wrong with manual focusing, but at some point you're going to want that fast AF glass and it's just more expensive. I downgraded to a D50 awhile ago to get more functionality out of my lenses and I've never regretted it. I won't purchase a new body until I move to full frame and start collecting new glass.

Full frame and pro glass.... mmm that's where the sweet point is