suggestion for next lens

<p> HI I have been using a Nikon 50mm 1.8 for a year now on my d90. I see i miss out on shots due to the fact i cannot zoom in and also the colors seem to be slightly duller than real life. As far as what I take photos of things in my city environment,kids,buildings and small animals.In the future i would like to concentrate on fine art photography.Iam open to suggestions my budget is around 300$<br>

thanks Marcus</p>

<p>There are many choices, and there will be many suggestions. I can only suggest what I would look for. If you can find a used Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in Nikon mount, in reasonable condition, that is a very fine lens suitable for much of what you shoot. Several companies make similar lenses. For small animals, if they're wild and difficult to approach, you will need something longer.</p>

<p>Marcus, The dull colors may be attributed to either your camera settings, or your post processing techniques. I doubt the lack of color saturation is due to your lens. Are you shooting RAW or Jpeg? Hang on to your 50 1.8.</p>

<p>I think you will enjoy the flexibility of a zoom, and I agree that it will enhance your photographic experience. Given your budget, I suggest that you consider a <em>used</em> zoom lens. I shoot with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. For more reach, I have a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D, shooting with either a D80, or a D7000. There is a focal length gap when jumping to the 85mm, but I am OK with working around the gap.</p>

<p>If you shop for used lenses at KEH.com your $300 budget will buy a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, or Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, or Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6, or Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6. You can read reviews on these lenses. Personally, I prefer a constant aperture f/2.8, but would consider the Sigma. You could add a Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 for $115 used. This very affordable zoom lens will allow you to discover what telephoto focal lengths you like, and you could move to a better tele-zoom later. Your budget will not cover a Nikon 18-200mm, or a Nikon 16-85mm, but that's OK. You can shoot kids and fine art with less zoom range.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see i miss out on shots due to the fact i cannot zoom in</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zoom in, or out?<br>

If you miss being able to zoom out (wider angle), the Tamron Hector and Christopher mentioned is a good choice; and pretty much all the other lenses Christopher mentioned will work as well; I'd add the Nikon AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 to that list; it can often be found fairly cheap and it's a very solid performer.<br>

If you want to zoom in more, then a lens as the 55-200VR or 55-300VR are within your budget, and would make good places to start. These aren't lenses with a fast aperture and the best build quality, but optically really sound. And frankly, the budget is restrictive for wanting much more.</p>

<p>If you prefer to continue to use fixed focal lenses, check the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX and/or AF-S 85mm f/1.8G.</p>

<p>thanks for the advice guys and that budget can be pushed a little more. i have another question will an "professional" lens give me better colors? what would could i expect with a larger budget say around 500$</p>

<p>Marcus -- Lenses have virtually no effect at all on color. There can sometimes be some very slight variations in side-by-side comparisons, but all within the range of what can be adjusted in the settings on your camera on in Photoshop.<br /><br />Have you considered manual focus non-zoom lenses? For $500 you're only going to be able to afford one zoom, and not a top of the line lens at that. But older manual focus lenses are going begging these days. You could probably pick up maybe a 24mm 2.8, 105 2.5 and 200 4.0 used, all Nikon, for the money you have available. Along with your 50, you would have a pretty complete range of the basics. They wouldn't be the latest or most convenient, but they would be high-end professional grade Nikon glass. I'd have to double check but I believe your D90 can use any Nikon lens from the AI series (mid 1970s) and later. For many years, all I had were a 28, 50, 105 and 200 but was able to handle all the jobs that came my way.</p>

<p>One small point since you have a limited budget ...Photoshop is the most expensive and there are several which will do all you want for considerably less. Paint Shop Pro, GIMP, Elements, Light Room and so on. Since I have been using PSP since almost I started I can tell you that you do not need the latest version and for every day work any version from v.X will be more than adequate and you will find them on Amazon at quite good prices. On the other hand if you have aspirations to become a professional then it is probably best to start with Elements or Lightroom as they come from the Adobe stable which is the 'gold standard'.<br>

The point with regard to the lenses suggested is that most loose aperture as you zoom out so if you find you use the f/1.8 of your fifty currently you could continue to need it. On the other hand depending on your camera you should be able to increase ISO to compensate. In that a lot depends on how sensitive you are to noise as to how high ISO you are happy to work with.</p>

<p>"Professional" lenses are typically high-grade constructions, and tend to be fast aperture lenses. Otherwise, they're lenses just as the rest of them. You do not need a professional lens to get pleasing colours. While I do not agree with Craig that lenses have no effect on colour (the differences can be there, but it's more in the exotic lens territory, such as Zeiss and old MF lenses, where it comes into play), in this case I would say: it is not a difference to worry about.</p>

<p>I have the same 50mm f/1.8D you probably have, and no problems getting vivid, contrasty colours from it. Like with any lens, some post processing to finish off the image properly is needed (and as JC noted, Photoshop is not a must for that, there is plenty software that can do it, including freebies as ViewNX2 or Picasa). You can also set the camera to render more saturated, contrasty photos. So, with regards to the colour, I'd really advice you to look at your post-processing, and/or set up the camera different to render the colours you want.<br>

In choosing a new lens, your prime objective should be the focal length, aperture and price. Choose your lens based on those parameters. $500 is a reasonably budget in which many great lenses are available. Now, what do you want this new lens to do?</p>

<p>Marcus, think about what you want to shoot. And then let that direct you as to what type of glass you buy. <br>

Very generally speaking...<br>

--interested in landscapes or intro architectural photography or interior spaces? Then get a wide-angle lens.<br>

--interested in street photography? A zoom that probably goes to 200mm.<br>

--what about getting really close--shooting water droplets or insects? A macro lens.<br>

--Sports inside or at night (a professional quality zoom that is f2.8 and 200mm).<br>

--Wildlife (probably a 300mm or 400mm lens).<br>

This is why so many of us have so many lens in our gadget bags/slings and at home. It's not that you can't shoot sunsets or western vistas unless you have a wide angle lens, it just makes it easier. So start by looking at what you want to shoot more of. Do NOT start by looking to add another gadget or piece of gear.<br>

BTW, if your colors are subdued, yes, that is more to do with WB and settings and post processing. But the one way your glass contributes isn't the specific lens, it's that bright sun and glare and can reduce the vibrancy of colors. A polarizing filter can help in some areas (making the sky a more vibrant blue for instance).</p>

<p>To somewhat contradict what others have said, professional lenses can have some influence of colors as they tend to have better coatings and glass which can produce better contrast and cleaner colors. They also may have less flair which can also produce a cleaner image. But usually the differences are small and can be compensated to a great extent in post.<br>

The best thing for you to do is decide what zoom range you're wanting then check the various lens testing sites and compare the optical quality of the lenses in the price range you're wanting.</p>

<p>For the kind of shooting you want to do I suggest a Nikon 18-105 VR. You can cut the cost by getting a used or factory refurbished one. Try B&H and Adorama for new and refurbished. Try keh.com as well as B&H and Adorama for used. The 17-50 f/2.8 lenses are good lenses, but unless you also have a longer lens, you may find the 50mm end not long enough for many shots.</p>

<p>If your colors are dull, it's likely not the fault of the lens. If you are shooting RAW you can improve the colors in post processing (PP). If you are shooting JPEG's you can brighten up the colors by setting the camera to vivid and/or by setting it to a higher level of saturation. Your manual will tell you how to do both. You can also brighten the colors in PP if you shoot JPEG's.</p>

<p>Marcus, are you using a lens hood? If not, that could be part of the problem. The 50/1.8 is a very good lens, but if light is striking the front element when you take photos that will reduce contrast and wash out colors.</p>

<p>You've had some good advice on lenses, but be careful when buying inexpensive zooms. My wife bought a Tamron 17-50/2.8 for her 60D and it was so good I ordered another for my 60D. Our second example was a terrible lens. It showed severe chromatic aberration even at f/8, and back focused almost every photograph. I returned it, sold my wife's 17-50 Tamron and bought a used Canon 17-35/2.8L. Even being more than 15 years old it was a better lens in every respect than either Tamron.</p>

<p>The extra cost of professional lenses buys you more than build quality and faster apertures. Pro zoom lenses have more elements using more expensive glass than the less expensive equivalents, and handle difficult lighting (such as backlit tree branches) more capably than less expensive zooms. My 17-35L showed very little CA under the same conditions where my wife's Tamron lens exhibited moderate CA and the one I bought for myself was dreadful.</p>

<p>I'd rather have one good lens than three cheap ones, especially for fine art work. Decide whether you need a wider lens or a longer lens next, then get the Nikon 35/1.8G or 85/1.8G.</p>

<p> "<em>I'd rather have one good lens than three cheap ones</em>" I am thinking along those lines. I am still a beginner and from these great answers i know it more i need to learn about lens. I think i will be getting a used inexpensive zoom something up to 200m for the hobby/portrait? part of my photography and 85/1.8 lens later on for the more serious fine art aspect. I guess Iam wrong but was under the impression a pro lens means better colors and details or just and all around better looking photo</p>