Yet another one..."Which lens should i get" lol.

[Wiljo_5]

First of all, thanks for clicking on the thread.

Hi, i want to buy a new lens for my Nikon D60. Right now im working with the 18-55 lens the camera came with, and to be honest, i feel like i've "squeezed the juice" out of that lens (potential wise lol). I will mainly be taking candid pictures, skateboarding pictures, urban landscaping and some macro of flowers and such, So i think i need a good overall lens? Oh, i forgot to mention; IT NEEDS TO BE AFFORDABLE (since im on a budget, $200-$300 max)

Right now ive only researched ('cause i dont know much about lenses) the: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 Lens and Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX.

Could you guys help me out?

Thank you very much, Will.

PS. Heres my Flickr page incase you want to see the kind of pictures i take so that you can get a feeling of what i mean (thanks again lol) : Flickr: .WillVaz.'s Photostream

 

[Wiljo_5]

30 views but no reply? common people.. please hahah

 

[Big Mike]

Right now ive only researched ('cause i dont know much about lenses) the: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 Lens and Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX.

Probably not a great choice because it's max aperture isn't very big.

For shooting things like skateboarders (especially when the light isn't great) you would be much better off with a lens that has a large maximum aperture. This can also help anytime you are shooting in less than ideal lighting or if you want a shallow DOF.

Have a look at the 50mm F1.8.

 

[R6_Dude]

Definitely look at the 50mm1.8. For Nikon its 199 and I believe 399 for a 1.4.

 

[kundalini]

30 views but no reply? common people.. please hahah

I can only imagine that you thought that was funny.



:er:




So instead of assistance, I'll offer some advice. 1) Use the search function. 2) $200-300 is like pissing in the ocean.

 

[erhard]

For the type of urban photography you're talking about and macro ability, maybe look at something like the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO, but it will probably not fall into your budget range.
Therein lies a bit of a problem, with such a limited budget, you might be hard pressed to get a half decent zoom/Macro lens.

 

[Wiljo_5]

30 views but no reply? common people.. please hahah

I can only imagine that you thought that was funny.



:er:




So instead of assistance, I'll offer some advice. 1) Use the search function. 2) $200-300 is like pissing in the ocean.

I meant "come on people." im sorry, english is my second language.

 

[george elsasser]

If you are serious about your photography:

The first question is do you know the 35mm film equivalent your lens is on the D60? Do you know the factor figure to use to get that information, if both answers are no, in my opinion you do not need a new lens. Another question one would probably ask you is what photographers you admire and which photographers books you own?

As you may already know the 18-55mm lens on a D60 is 27-82.5mm. Before zoom lenses became good, there was a 35mm, a 50mm and an 80mm. These were the primary lenses all of which you have covered from 27-82.5mm.

Every thing below 28mm is extreme wide angle and takes a good deal of practice to master and everything on the longer end 200mm and up is the same deal.

"i feel like i've "squeezed the juice" out of that lens (potential wise lol)"

Cartier Bresson used one lens his whole career, Ralph Gibson has used a 50mm lens for 95-98% of his work for 40+yrs. Alex Webb uses a 28mm exclusively.

A 50mm lens on that camera will be a 75mm lens, you already have one of those. The 50mm(75mm) would be faster than what you have but that's all. Optically a little better also but will it add soul and heart to you pictures no way no how!

I do not know much about macro but you could get close up filters and see if it is your thing before dumping big money. Honestly there is not much around for 300. that is gonna be much better than what you already have. There is nothing wrong with the lens you have, I used one my self quite a bit both professionally and personally sharp and decent correction. Do not get caught up in better stuff makes better photos- better photographers make better photos. Sometimes better stuff is heaver, for some photographers heavier is never better. Spend the money on a class or some books.

I looked at some of your images they are coming along nicely. If you want to stick with zooms I'm not sure there is a better choice technically unless you got more than 300. There is nothing in your listed photos above that needs a different lens, A faster lens for low light. A single focal length that can focus faster but other than that......

My point here is if your serious about photography don't get crazy about gear get crazy about pictures. If and when you need different stuff you will get it- but do not make the mistake of forgoing education for camera stuff. This site is loaded with people obsessed with camera stuff which is perfectly fine - but do let that get in the way of improving your images, it is 2 different things. Making photos and really really studying photos will make you a better photographer. Have you accepted responsibility for everything that is in the rectangle of you photos are there things there you would rather not be there, if so find a different position not another lens.

 

[kundalini]

The first question is do you know the 35mm film equivalent your lens is on the D60?

I pretty much stopped reading after this. I personally think that if someone has no basis for the previous baseline, then it is irrevalent. It's like equivocating feet to meters without any basic training.

Without sounding pedantic, the analogy you present (as with most people) seem to forget that the difference between a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor (35mm equivalent) is in Field of View. It has nothing to do with Focal Length. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens...... and so on. This is a common and very misleading misnomer.

 

[djacobox372]

if you dont have a fast normal prime then your next lens should always be a fast normal prime.

 

[kundalini]

I meant "come on people." im sorry, english is my second language.

My bad. FYI, a typical colloquialism is 'c'mon people' for come on people.

I still say that your current budget is not going to yield a very good lens.

 

[themedicine]

I will have to third or fourth the idea of a 35mm or 50mm lens. the 35mm lens is like 200 bucks and its fast and will focus on your camera. It would be nice for walkaround cause you would physically have to WALK closer to your subjects or farther away from them. haha, but it would be nice either way.

 

[george elsasser]

Unfortunately to my knowledge the D60 (body has no internal motor) will not auto focus unless the lens has a motor in it (which knocks a lot of primes at least the Nikon primes out of the picture). I do have and occasionally use the Nikon 55-200 VR (with an internal motor) and it focuses pretty close up, perhaps this would help with close up shots. It would give you good telephoto length (although not a fast lens) it might help with skateboarder shots. I will defer to www.kenrockwell.com he reviews all the Nikon stuff constantly and has much useful info on the gear across the board. I will say I enjoy that lens and it is plenty sharp. That lens will fit the budget and give you more range than you presently have, I bought it because it allows me to get very close to objects unlike my other long lens.

The first question is do you know the 35mm film equivalent your lens is on the D60?

I pretty much stopped reading after this. I personally think that if someone has no basis for the previous baseline, then it is irrevalent. It's like equivocating feet to meters without any basic training.

Without sounding pedantic, the analogy you present (as with most people) seem to forget that the difference between a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor (35mm equivalent) is in Field of View. It has nothing to do with Focal Length. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens...... and so on. This is a common and very misleading misnomer.

Yes your math is correct and I should have used different terms (equivalent should have worked) to better explain what I intended to get across. While I am at it, I apologize to you, the questioner and anyone else who may have found my post preachy sounding. It certainly reads that way to me in part. I should have written my ideas differently.

I am not sure your correcting me without giving clarification to the questioner is helpful to him or another who has the same kind of question so often found on this forum.

He did state: "Right now ive only researched ('cause i dont know much about lenses)......"

Since he stated he did not know much about lenses my intention was to start at sq. one but my delivery was poor.

I thought it might be helpful to point the questioner in the direction of a baseline of understanding of what a normal view through a camera was or looked like (many people who have entered photography in the digital era are unaware of this). From this basis I hoped it would help to improve his photography and help him understand from that vantage point what he may like or possibly need in the area of lenses now or in the future.

 

[gsgary]

The Tamron is crap, not even that good as a door stop, save your money until you can afford a good lens

 

[kundalini]

Well George, it seems you have edited your last post. At the bottom of it you made some comment ..."since you're a Nikon shooter... with just a hint of sarcasm about me suggesting which lens to suggest to the OP. I would certainly suggest one of these............

Since that may be too many to suggest at one time, I can narrow it down to three.​

That's how I roll.
​