Lens Suggestions

[zlwags85]

Hello!

I bought a Nikon D60 a few months ago and I have been fiddling around with the 18-55mm kit lens. I could probably list 5-10k in lens that I would love to have and that would provide great combinations…. But I simply can’t afford nearly that much.

The three subjects that I enjoy shooting the most are:

1. Scenery
2. People
3. Macro (flowers/corals etc.)

I would like to be able to take pictures at nighttime sporting events under the lights. I’m not sure how fast the lens needs to be… could I get away with a 2.8? Any suggestions would be great. I think I would like to get a zoom lens first and then in 6-12 months I will try to save up for a macro lens. As far as the current budget goes, I would like to keep any purchase under 400-500…. And that might be stretching it thin already. Any suggestions are appreciated!

 

[IPT]

I am not familiar with the Nikon line-up as a Canon user. In that price range, and if you are not looking for extreme action shots or to shoot in low light F2.8 would be overkill (and pretty expensive).

If you have the wide angle covered than I would look at the 70-200 range myself. Some nikon user (or someone more familiar with their lineup I'm sure will comment soon).

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Your 1 2 and 3 are specialties of three different lenses. Night sports (football, baseball, ect.) is a 4th lens and will likely cost the most. The quality of lights we are talking about is a big deal. You will have a far easier time in the NFL than you would in a high school arena for example. For high school I keep my aperture pegged at f/2.8, my ISO pegged at 3200, at take whatever shutter speed I can get. This is usually between 1/100 and 1/160 in the local stadium. Shooting at 200mm with a 1.6x crop factor, 1/160 doesn't cut it. So IS (or in Nikon terms VR) helps with the hand shake. After all that, the players still move too fast and occasionally blur. When their legs, arms, bat, or the ball blurs its a cool effect and actually helps the image. When their face blurs, its a trash shot.

 

[ahuxman58]

Save your money ... Nikon glass is more expensive than Canon glass. Your gonna spend big bucks for good glass.

 

[nickb]

Some possible options (all prices are from B&H):

1) Ultra-wide Angle such as the Sigma 10-20 ($530) or Tokina 11-16 ($570). These work well for landscapes.

2) Tamron 90 mm F2.8 macro ($340). This is an excellent macro lens (1:1) and is highly regarded as a portrait lens. You may need to do some post-processing since some people find it too sharp for portraits but many find it just fine. There is a new version which works with the D60.

For a better mid-range zoom, the Nikkor 16-85 VR has been getting very good reviews ($530). Some people like the Nikkor 18-200 VR ($630). And, for a longer telephoto, the 80-300 VR ($450) has many admirers (but, it is only f4.5-5.6 and thus is limited for indoor sports.

Indoor sports though is going to be much tougher (although you haven't told us which sports or which level - high school vs pro). You are going to need a fast lens with a long telephoto range ($1,500 and up). Plus, you might need a better camera body to handle higher ISO settings. You might do some research on the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM APO ($720). You can some sample photos here.

Most of these lenses wouldn't count as 'pro' quality. But, they all are very good. You can see reviews of these lens here .

 

[zlwags85]

Alright - Thanks for suggesting a couple different websites! That really helps. I have been mainly reading DPReview... but that site seems to mainly review a little bit "higher" class lens. Well - I don't plan on taking to many sports pictures at night.... so I don't think I will be able to justify a fast lens. If anything, my little sister is a Senior and is a soccer player. So, my mom's camera is no where near good enough to snap shots of 90% of her games because it is night time. The lighting isn't too bad... but then it's also not a professional stadium.

After looking at some of the items you all suggested, it is pretty clear that I can only afford one lens currently. So... now, in your opinions, which one would add the best combonation for the next 6 months to a year keeping in mind that I only have the STD stock lens (18-55). Currently, I'm thinking that a 70-200 (maybe 300) lens would be a good addition. There are a couple lenses at B&H that were close to my price range that were faster lenses. I'm not sure a wide angle lens would be justified currently since I don't have to many plans to travel anywhere anytime soon... and I live in the midwest (providing hardly and scenery!) Thoughts? I am an ameateur and I'll admit that I have a LONG way to come... but I don't want to get poor lenses and wish that I would have got better lenses in a year. They are something that last a long time from what I understand. Thanks again!

 

[Misled]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13876032#post13876032 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by nickb
You might do some research on the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM APO ($720).

If you were me, you'd look into this one. For right now use the 18-55 as your wide until something else comes along. Watch if you go out looking for it used and make sure it's the HSM model if you want auto focus.

 

[nickb]

You need to decide your priorities and interests. From the list you gave in your first posting, I'd think about the Tamron 90 macro. This would give you an excellent macro lens which is also very good for portraits. It's also the cheapest of the ones I mentioned. But, everyone who has one seems to be highly complementary about its performance. It is something which you could keep lopng term and get good use from. However, if you want a travel zoom or a long reach telephoto, it wouldn't be a good choice.

 

[maxalmon]

If your on a budget, the Nikon 55-200mm VR lens is not bad, shop around and you can get it for $200, granted it's not the best lens, but for the price, it's a good option. Nice thing about the 55-200VR is that you can resell them at a decent price once you figure out which way your going with your photography. I sold my 55-200VR for $150 on craigslist, so I only lost $50

When I first started I had the kit 18-55 lens, then added the 55-200 VR and this combination pretty much covered all my needs. I played around with these lens for about 9months then figured out what I wanted to do and then started upgrading after I read a lot of reviews. Then I added the 105mm VR Nikon for my macro shots(love it!)...Point is, play around with the setup you have and then make some calculated decisions on glass once you get a better understanding of various lens designs and manufacturers..
That's what I did and right now I'm incredibly happy with my glass selection, only one I'm missing is a good 50mm...

 

[zlwags85]

Thanks for the suggestions.

As far as getting my priorities right, I have them... just not the funds. Have a wife, 300g reef, and a basement to finish in the next 6 months.

I think what I might do, is look into that 55-200 VR Nikkon lens a bit more. It is fairly cheap and would give me something additional to play with. Someone at work (assuming he remembers) is going to give/sell me a 55mm 2.8 Nikkor lens which he has had and never used for 2 years. I don't think it's top notch... but it would be another lens to learn on and play with a different aperture.

If I was going to go this route... which lens would you recommend? There are Sigma's that are rated very good and the Nikon's are rated pretty good too. Thoughts?
Thanks!

 

[TWallace]

Don't overlook Nikon's 50mm AF 1.8. It's cheap and very sharp and outstanding in low light. I picked up a used one for $60. They only cost around $110 new. I don't know if it autofocuses on a D60/D40. I use a D50 so I never worry about that. You could spend more for the 50mm 1.4 for a little better performance in low light, but the 1.8 is an incredible deal for the price.

For macro, I borrowed a friends Nikon 105mm (non-VR) micro and was very pleased with it. I think any good macro lens for Nikon is going to cost you at least $400.

Someone else already mentioned this one, but for scenery I've read nothing but good stuff about the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. It's allegedly much better than Nikon's similar and much more expensive 12-24mm. Tokina also makes a 12-24mm which is very good, too, if you want a little more zoom range than the 11-16, but it's F4 I believe instead of 2.8 (it's still a great lens, though).

 

[nickb]

The 50mm f1.8 won't auto-focus on the D60. The 55mm f2.8 looks like an old film camera lens. Have a look here to see if you can match it up to the Nikon lens list. http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#55micro