What lens should I get next?

<p>Hello everyone! I am an amateur nature photographer, and I've been studying and "photoing" for almost 3 years now. I started out with, what I consider a very nice camera for a 15 year old. I own a Nikon D3000 :D<br>

I saved up for that camera for 2 years and purchased it 2 years ago, it came with a Nikkor lens, 18-55mm to be exact. Recently, my grandparents purchased a Nikkor 55-200mm lens for me, with vibration reduction etc. I also own a nice camera case, lens cases and several lens hoods. I was wondering what lens should I go up to, or down to next, and where I should purchase it, and how much it will cost, because, as previously stated, I'm 15 and have <strong>rather limited resources</strong> because I have to save my money for what I need. </p>

<p>Also, any tripod recommendations? </p>

<p>Ta ta<br>

Madison</p>

<p>As a nature photographer, a tripod would be useful. May I suggest the discontinued Bogen Manfrotto 3001 tripod with 3029 head. You can find them on eBay for $100 or less, quite often. There is one listed there now for $69. Great value for the money.<br>

<strong id="mainContent">

<h1 ></h1>

</strong></p>

<p>What about lenses?</p>

<p>Nature...is it birding/wildlife? flowers, bug macro? or, say, landscape?</p>

<p>Wildlife (turkey, deer), Flowers and Landscape</p>

<p>What do you miss with what you have, a longer telephoto or a wider angle for scenic shots. You can analyze your existing images and see what focal lengths you are using. </p>

<p>At the long and expensive end of lenses, if you really want a long telephoto for birds/wildlife, etc, you'll have to save hard, a 600 f4 is thousands of dollars even for a used manual focus version, not including about $1k for a Wimberley head and tripod legs to match. Word of warning, you might need a driver's license and a vehicle to use it, they are heavy. :)</p>

 

<p>For flowers, you can focus very close with the 18-55mm. But if you want a true macro lens, then google working distance to find a good fit for yourself. Usually, a 60mm-105mm would be good. Landscape? again, your 18-55mm is quite nice and sharp at f8/11 on a tripod. If you have the VR version, you might be able to skip the tripod even.</p>

<p>Your 55-200mm should be okay for deer and turkey. If you want something longer or faster, be prepare to spend some money and carry the weight:)</p>

<p>If you just want to buy a new lens, I suggest the 35mm f1.8 for indoor/low light. It's pretty good, light weight and cheap, lens wise.</p>

 

<p>Filters (ND filters/ND grad filters would be a helpful)</p>

<p>Wow, memories. At your age, I was in much the same situation. After getting the basics covered (old Vivitar 220 screw mount SLR, small darkroom) I replaced the original 55mm f2.0 with a Pentax 50mm f1.4, then acquired a 35mm and 135mm tele. It sounds like you've got the whole focal length range well covered, the 18-55mm and 55-200mm are competent lenses.</p>

<p>At your age, with similar interests, my next step was a foray into macro. I did it first with extension tubes and closeup lenses. But with the used lens market of today, I'd do exactly what Leslie suggests, a 55-105mm macro lens. The older version of the Nikon 60mm f2.8 AF or 105mm f2.8 AF can often be had pretty reasonably, as can the excellent Tamron 90mm f2.8. The Tamron also has an image character (things like "bokeh", that you may not have heard of yet) that lets it do double duty as a really good portrait lens.</p>

<p>You can also get the old, manual focus macro lenses very cheap. You have to use them in manual exposure mode, and you don't get metering on your D3000. You have to "guess" the exposure, then check histograms and correct your exposure errors. But if you put up with that extra work, a Nikon 55mm f2.8, less that $150 on the used lens market, will amaze you with its sharpness and contrast. Your pictures will have a "bite" that the 18-55mm just can't match.</p>

<p>Oh, and Robert is 100% right about the tripod. If you haven't got one yet, it's your next step for landscape and flowers. A tripod will give you steadier, and therefore, sharper pictures. You may find that if you compared your existing 18-55 or 55-200 used on a tripod to a nice "real" macro lens without a tripod, that the tripod is a more important difference than a better lens. Seriously. They also aid composition.</p>

<p>I totally agree with the idea of a macro lens. You'll really enjoy it. a Really good lens long enough for birds and small wildlife will be very expensive. I've even seen the f3.5 version of the 55mm manual focus nikkor for as little as a hundred bucks. I totally love mine.</p>

<p>I hope you stay with it. Even if you don't make a career out of it, it's a fantastic art to be involved with.</p>

<p>Check out the Tokina 11-17mm/2.8 AT-X.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Jonas</p>

<p>What do you find missing in your current set, in which way does it hold you back?<br>

The 3 uses you indicate point at 3 different lenses (roughly): longer telelens (for distant animals and birds), macrolens (flowers, possibly bugs and mushrooms) or wide angle (landscapes). All 3 require different additions. It's not too difficult to recommend a specific lens, or indeed a tripod, but ultimately it has to do what you most want to have extra compared to what you can do now.</p>

<p>One way to combine the 2: the Nikon 70-300VR (longer than your current telelens) and add diopters for macro-work (screw-in lenses that reduce the minimal focus distance).</p>

<p>One more thing, can you check out some of my photography and tell me what you think, and some pointers, like constructive criticism? Some of the pictures are just for fun, but still please??</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crimson-photographer/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/crimson-photographer/</a></p>

<p>I had the 90 Tamron until my gear was stolen. I went with the 60 f/2 Tamron as a replacement due to the working distance being essentially equal and the 60 being faster and more useable in tight confines. My plan was to skip the 50 1.8 and Tamron 90. I am very happy with my choice so far. The 60 I believe is a better lens at infinity and is a faster lens. If I had to do it over again I would go with the 60 Tamron again.</p>

<p>Madison - it's very rarely the equipment i.e. a specific lens or camera body, that makes good photos. It is almost always the vision and patience of the photographer. Rather than spend money on another lens, you might save a little more and look for a weekend seminar hosted by an experienced landscape/wildlife photographer that you can attend. When I started back into photography after a 25 year hiatus to raise a family and run a business, the first thing I did was spend a weekend at a seminar.<br>

It helped me remember the basics and expanded my thinking about what I could do and how I could do it.<br>

Perhaps you could find something local that would help keep down the costs.</p>

<p>Good job with the pics. For what you've shown on flickr and the types of shooting I would say there are a couple of things to work on. <br>

First. Try to work on your composition: a good way to go is to try to adhere to the rule of thirds.. i.e. center shots can become boring.<br>

Second. For flower work I'd say go for the macro lens, close-up lenses and tubes aside the best quality pic will always come from the best quality glass.<br>

Third. Eventually a tripod becomes a necessity. Also Keep up your work with dogs, a lot more fun than flowers too!<br>

P.s. I am also on flickr, if you'd like to see some of my stuff on flickr search STRONGBAD75 under people.</p>