Which Lenses?

[Mommy2Four]

I'm not new to photography in general, but I am new to dSLR's and their lenses. I just purchased a Nikon D90 but I am deciding between that and a D7000 that I might get instead. What two lenses would you consider the most important ones to own for someone who wants to go at least semi-pro? I would like to work my way up to that level but want a good quality lens. I'm not interested in paying $2000 for a lens yet, so I'd like it to be reasonably priced. I like macro photography so if you could recommend a good macro lens too that would be great. I also do a lot of portrait and landscape photography. Also provide a link to where I can buy said lenses. Sorry if I'm asking too much, but there are a lot of lenses out there and I'm having a hard time choosing which two to buy. All of the Nikon lenses seem to have good reviews. Thanks a bunch!

 

[Overread36]

We'll need an idea of what your actual max budget is for these options - otherwise we'll not have any basis to understand what price band you are working into. Furthermore you're request appears to be at two ends - you mention interests such as macro; portrait; landscape type work but you also mention "going pro" without any mention of your specific areas of pro work that you intended to work in.

Furthermore you might find that if you want to take the "pro" side into account that you'll have to put more budget toward one really good lens rather than splitting it between a range of slightly less ideal performing lenses (ie ensuring that you have the lens to perform your pro work to the best possible level rather than skimping on this level)

 

[Mommy2Four]

Oh, as far as going pro, it would be portrait photography. I like doing landscape and macro as a hobby. I have about $1000 to spend per lens if that helps.

 

[Trever1t]

not enough $....keep saving.

 

[Mommy2Four]

not enough $....keep saving.

Ohhh but I need something to start off with I'm not ready to go pro or even semi-pro, I need to work my way up that way. I have the $, I'm just not ready to take my amateur self and instantly propel my way into that kind of spending without some history (if you can understand what I'm trying to say)!

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

The most important lens for me is my tele. I highly recommend getting a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. It will cost you around $850 used or $1000 new. If you can't afford that then get a used Nikon 70-210mm AF f/4-5.6 D for around $250. Either of these will give you excellent results on a D90. For a good all around lens you can get a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for around $200 new. You might also consider the 50mm AF f/1.8 D or the 50mm 1.4 AF-S if you prefer something a little longer than the normal frame 35mm lens. As far as a wide angle lens goes check out the Sigma 8-16mm DX or the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

 

[Trever1t]

yes, of course, that was my attempt at humor

What lenses do you have, if any, already?

Find a nice 50mm f1.8 for starters, around $125 makes a great cheap and sharp started portrait lens.

 

[Overread36]

Oh, as far as going pro, it would be portrait photography. I like doing landscape and macro as a hobby. I have about $1000 to spend per lens if that helps.

How many lenses total? I'm just trying to build a picture of how much you have as a total sum to spend. You might well find that some lenses (esp those in higher price brackets) might cover two or more select areas of interest- letting you invest a little more in them.
Further you might (depending on your interest levels and income/savings) find that you can spend a larger amount now on one lens and get a great bit of glass and then save for a little for second and so on.

 

[sobolik]

Being pro means you are getting paid. Many get paid using just ordinary lenses.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]So what's the optimum portrait lens? [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It depends on how much of a person you're showing. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want the whole person standing, you can use a 50-70mm lens. If they sit down, a 70-105mm works great.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want just head and shoulders, you'll want a 200mm to 300mm lens, at least, since you want to stay at least fifteen feet away.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]So what's this about 105mm lenses?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It's just an old wives' tale from the 1950s.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the 35mm format became popular in the 1960s, the most popular affordable lens from Nikon happened to be the 105mm lens, first as the f/4 for 1950s Nikon rangefinders, and then the 105mm f/2.5 for SLRs. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Like most old wives' tales, people just put "105mm" and "portrait" together without asking why.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]The Best Lenses Today[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For field use, I love the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. DC stands for Defocus Control, which means Bokeh Optimization. The 135mm DC is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. The DC feature allows you to tailor the bokeh for a perfect background that simply disappears into smooth washes of color. Nikon also makes a slightly smaller and less expensive 105mm f/2 DC[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 105mm f/1.8 AIS and 105mm f/2.5 are nice, but went obsolete back in the early 1990s when they were replaced for portraiture by the DC lenses. Since few people outside of Japan understand what the DC lenses do, I don't know that any other than the most savvy pros know about them. Less informed people misunderstand them to be soft focus lenses, which they most assuredly are not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These shorter lenses were never perfect for head shots. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For head shots, a longer lens like a 300mm or 400mm is best. If I'm in a studio with a controlled background, I use my 80-400mm VR since I can use one lens for all views. If I'm in the field, I'd consider lugging a huge f/2.8 tele. On a more practical budget, the 300mm f/4 lenses do almost as good a job of losing the backgrounds as the f/2.8s, and cost a tiny fraction of the f/2.8 lenses. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
For people with rational budgets, don't worry. Use whatever you have and have fun, like the 18-55mm lens that came with your camera - just zoom to 55mm. The 70-300mm zooms also work fine.
[/FONT]


Portrait Lenses

 

[Mommy2Four]

Thanks everyone. I have a $2000 budget right now on top of the price of the camera, so about $3500 total. I still haven't decided whether to keep the D90 or go for the D7000. Are the differences in those models really worth the extra money? I mean ultimately I'd love to get the $5000 Nikon model but that will have to wait.

I myself am still not sure what type of photography I am best at, but at some point I do want to get paid. I am very amateurish but do know what everything does on a camera and what it all means and I know how to set up shots and how to angle my flash!

 

[Light Artisan]

D90 vs D7000

D7000 has better high ISO performance.
D7000 has more control on the body (less menu diving)
D7000 has better video (with mic jack)
D7000 has dual card slots
D7000 has handy U1 and U2 modes
D7000 has 39 AF points
D7000 does 6fps vs 4.5 on the D90
D7000 has a better battery
D7000 ... well, you get the idea
D7000 has everything the D90 has and more...

 

[KmH]

For landscapes you need a wide angle lens and a tripod. I recommend the AF-S 12-24 mm f/4G, $900 new.

Macro is very specialized and will require at least one true macro lens.

For portraiture you need at least 3 lenses:

1. AF 50 mm f/1.8D ($125), or an AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G ($430)
2. AF 85mm f/1.8D ($430), or an AF 85 mm f/1.4D ($1100)
3. AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D ($1100), or an AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8G ($2160)

If this was true, ".....but do know what everything does on a camera and what it all means and I know how to set up shots and how to angle my flash!" you wouldn't need this thread. A lens, is a lens, is a lens. It doesn't matter if it's on a film camera or a digital camera.

 

[gsgary]

Being pro means you are getting paid. Many get paid using just ordinary lenses.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]So what's the optimum portrait lens? [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It depends on how much of a person you're showing. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want the whole person standing, you can use a 50-70mm lens. If they sit down, a 70-105mm works great.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want just head and shoulders, you'll want a 200mm to 300mm lens, at least, since you want to stay at least fifteen feet away.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]So what's this about 105mm lenses?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It's just an old wives' tale from the 1950s.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the 35mm format became popular in the 1960s, the most popular affordable lens from Nikon happened to be the 105mm lens, first as the f/4 for 1950s Nikon rangefinders, and then the 105mm f/2.5 for SLRs. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Like most old wives' tales, people just put "105mm" and "portrait" together without asking why.
[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]The Best Lenses Today[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For field use, I love the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. DC stands for Defocus Control, which means Bokeh Optimization. The 135mm DC is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. The DC feature allows you to tailor the bokeh for a perfect background that simply disappears into smooth washes of color. Nikon also makes a slightly smaller and less expensive 105mm f/2 DC[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 105mm f/1.8 AIS and 105mm f/2.5 are nice, but went obsolete back in the early 1990s when they were replaced for portraiture by the DC lenses. Since few people outside of Japan understand what the DC lenses do, I don't know that any other than the most savvy pros know about them. Less informed people misunderstand them to be soft focus lenses, which they most assuredly are not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These shorter lenses were never perfect for head shots. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For head shots, a longer lens like a 300mm or 400mm is best. If I'm in a studio with a controlled background, I use my 80-400mm VR since I can use one lens for all views. If I'm in the field, I'd consider lugging a huge f/2.8 tele. On a more practical budget, the 300mm f/4 lenses do almost as good a job of losing the backgrounds as the f/2.8s, and cost a tiny fraction of the f/2.8 lenses. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
For people with rational budgets, don't worry. Use whatever you have and have fun, like the 18-55mm lens that came with your camera - just zoom to 55mm. The 70-300mm zooms also work fine.
[/FONT]


Portrait Lenses

Full of **** and bad info as usual

 

[sobolik]

Thanks everyone. I have a $2000 budget right now on top of the price of the camera, so about $3500 total. I still haven't decided whether to keep the D90 or go for the D7000. Are the differences in those models really worth the extra money? I mean ultimately I'd love to get the $5000 Nikon model but that will have to wait.

I myself am still not sure what type of photography I am best at, but at some point I do want to get paid. I am very amateurish but do know what everything does on a camera and what it all means and I know how to set up shots and how to angle my flash!

"I still haven't decided whether to keep the D90 or go for the D7000. Are the differences in those models really worth the extra money?"


I have tghe D90 now and am pondering getting the D7000 for 2 reasons.

1) Continuous focus while shooting video. But I shoot very few videos so it is not a high priority.

2) I shoot people at weddings with a wide angle lens. I will crop out 2,3 or more compositions that will still have plenty of resolution for 4x6 prints. (couple in the middle, middle couple and expression of man on the right, middle couple with couple on the left etc) The extra megapixels of the D7000 would be a benefit for this technique.

I have not yet done the swap for 2 reasons

1) I'm waiting for a history to emerge on the D7000 I've heard of hot pixels Nikon D7000 hot pixels issue | Nikon D7000 News and Tips

2) I am apparently happy with the D90 and in not in need.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

This is what I would do, and it may be just a couple hundred over your budget so hopefully you have some flexibility.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR ( About $2000 if you find a deal ) This would be your one pro level lens and can be used in MANY applications, from outdoor portraits to wildlife, to street shooting.

Kenko Extension tubes. ( about $175 )( Add these to the previously mentioned 70-200 or any of your other lenses and you have a pretty decent flexible macro set up. You do not have to use all of the tubes to get decent macro although it will not be 1:1 if you do not use all of the tubes together, but you might be quite surprised at your results. You can also crop since you would be using a razer sharp lens and a D7000. You can mix and match for your needs. )

Nikkor 35mm 1.8 ( about $200 )

Use the kit lens for everything else ( the wide end can be used for decent landscapes although it is not a "superwide" by any means ) and once you are fully commited to pro, you can upgrade that lens as well.

I priced it quickly online and this entire package with the 18-105 VR kit lens would run about $3968 and thats without searching for any deals on ebay or anything.

Oh and also, I would defiately take the D7000 over the D90 if you have any intention of pursuing pro work. Not that the D90 isn't a fine camera, but if you have the option, why skimp.