Help with Lens Picking

<p>I got the Nikon D3100 with the Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G!<br>

I'm looking for a lens that is better than this one. Nikon or Canon lens<br>

SOMETHING that is clear, with detail so I can use it for nature, car photos, wedding, landscaping! can someone please help me out with ideas. Price range is from $100-600<br>

For example something like these<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/7260554@N08/23355293990/in/pool-2074592@N25/<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/7260554@N08/23355293990/in/pool-2074592@N25/<br>

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/07/c0/3a07c071cbf466a72d58e776303ecb02.jpg<br>

http://rosewoodcutters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IMG_0033.jpg</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What is the problem with your current 18-55mm lens? While it is a consumer-grade, basic lens, it is capable of taking good pictures in a lot of situations, including those in the examples you cited. If you are running into its limitations, we need to discuss what the problems are.</p>

<p>Buying another lens is not going to automatically give you better results. In particular, a Canon lens is useless on your Nikon D3100.</p>

<p>Shawn, maybe it's more useful to post a link to one of your own photos, and explain what you dislike. Looking at the examples, most photos look quite post-processed to emphasise sharpness/contrast, some are sharp thanks to a tripod, some are telelens photos (at least, longer focal length than 55mm). And most, as Shun noted, made with a Canon lens that won't fit a Nikon.<br>

Rather than simply buying something else, think about what problem you want to solve, and next what the best solution is. Can be a lens, but it could also be a tripod, a flash or a good book and a course/workshop.</p>

 

<p>The Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G lens that came with your camera isn't a bad lens by any means, it's actually a sort of jack of all trades lens, good at everything, but great at nothing. Unless you want to cut out some post-production [which won't be too significant anyways], I'd keep the lens. If you're absolutely positively sure you need another lens, you're going to have to assess what you need the specific lens for [shorter focal length for landscapes, longer for nature shots for example] before you buy any.<br>

Going along with what Wouter said, a good workshop or class can go a very long way for developing an eye for shots, while equipment such as a flash unit and a tripod can help you take better pictures, making post-production less labor intensive.</p>

<p>i'd add a $200 35/1.8 for low-light shots to a kit lens as an inexpensive add-on. later on, when you get more experienced, other lenses may appeal to you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>nature, car photos, wedding, landscaping!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>btw, no reason the 18-55 can't do all that.</p>

<p>Shawn, it usually isn't the lens which is the limiting factor for most photographers, nor their camera body, but rather their lack of experience, knowledge and creativity. Like the others have said, the lens you have is a good all-around lens easily capable of creating photos similar to those you highlighted. Merely by the fact that you cited a Canon lens on your Nikon body suggests that you are new to both your camera, its lens, and photography in general. IMHO the most significant recommendation from the others is to find a good workshop for beginners, take a course, or get a good elementary book from your library. Get very familiar with your present gear - and don't get mislead by marketing hype. After a year or so you will be in a much better position to determine what, if any, additional gear you may need to further your photography style.</p>

<p>Two of those linked pictures - the woman with veil, and the monkey - were obviously taken with a lens a bit longer than 55mm focal length, and possibly a slightly wider aperture than f/5.6.</p>

<p>All the others could easily have been shot with an 18-55mm zoom, especially the simple snapshot of railway tracks. For the night shots the most important ingredient was a tripod. Notice the red car trail in the shot of the arch (Arc de Triomphe?), which shows the shutter time was in the region of a couple of seconds and impossible to handhold.<br /> The impact of the shot of the car relies on the low angle and closeness to the wheel; a matter of framing and "seeing" the picture in your head rather than needing a special lens.</p>

<p>My advice would be to practise with the lens you've got before blaming it for disappointing results. Lenses have improved a lot in the last few years, and that lens would have been considered state of the art just a few years ago. Yet people were still taking stunning pictures back then, with equipment that would be considered obsolete and primitive today.</p>

<p>You might try to do a search for the 18-55mm G Nikon lens on Flickr and see the results other people are getting with one.<br /> There's a nice example here:<br>

<p>Sorry! Can't get links to work since I "upgraded" to Windows 8.1.</p>

<p>Most of the above shots have more to do with experience/skill than gear. I could do many of them with my Leica camera & lenses made in the 1940s, plus a tripod. My suggestion: join a local camera club and find a mentor or two.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, I updated your URL from https to plain http, and then the link works.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun and Rodeo Joe on this. <br>

I would like to pretend that my 18-55 lens is responsible for my mistakes, but despite the cheap appearance, it's surprisingly competent, and the blame for my lousy photographs is...well, I'm still trying to find who to blame for that.</p>

<p>I'd also suggest the 35mm f1.8 DX. It's cheap, pretty fast, and in my experience much sharper at f1.8-3.5 :P<br>

<br />All kidding aside, yeah...the kit lenses are capable of taking a photograph, but I've never been a fan of any of them outside of the long discontinued 18-70mm. Depends on your style of shooting though, ex. if you're always at f8 and not shooting contrasty scenes then sure...keep the kit lens. IF you aren't then I think primes are a good way to get into "better" glass fairly cheap (ex. 35, 50, 85, 180, etc). </p>

<p>Going along with what Tyrone said, a prime lens is probably the best way to go (I'd recommend a 50mm or a 35mm) if you're going to buy a lens</p>

<p>For DX bodies, the 85mm focal length is a great portrait length at a 127mm-equivalent, and Nikon's new 85mm f/1.8 lens is a real gem. Its fast, f/1.8 aperture also makes it great in low light, or for easily throwing your background out-of-focus for improved subject-isolation. I have my 85mm f/1.8G mounted on my D3300 virtually 100% of the time.<br /> <br /> • <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/838798-REG/Nikon_2201_AF_S_NIKKOR_85mm_f_1_8G.html">AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G</a> ($477)<br /> <br /> There are several wide-angle choices for DX-format bodies. The Tokina 11-16mm DX-II works on bodies without screw-drive AF mechanisms, like yours (don't get the older model). Though it has a limited range, it's a popular choice since it goes pretty wide (16.5mm-equivalent), and has a fast f/2.8 constant-aperture (however, this does make the lens fairly large).<br /> <br /> • <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/882236-REG/Tokina_atx116prodxn_ii_AT_X_116_PRO_DX_II.html">Tokina </a><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/882236-REG/Tokina_atx116prodxn_ii_AT_X_116_PRO_DX_II.html">AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8</a> ($359)</p>

<p>Recommending a prime without knowing which focal length actually works for whoever asks the question is a tricky proposition, in my view. I shoot mostly primes these days, but for sure I've used zooms to learn which focal lengths were important to me. Plus, plenty people simply don't like the more rigid shooting style a prime imposes.</p>

<p>the 18-55 you mention is the lens I used for 85% of my shots in the last 8 years with my d90. Some pictures I have enlarged 16x20. It's a very nice lens. Now that I have a fx camera, I have a cheap $50 24-80 lens. I'm not a nutcase, I work with the tools I know. For low light, studio or critical shots, my 50mm 1.8d. All the comments above make sense, but try a prime like this one, you\ll see things differently, compose differently and take your time.<br>

Keep shooting</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I got the Nikon D3100 with the Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G!<br /> I'm looking for a lens that is better than this one. Nikon or Canon lens<br /> SOMETHING that is clear, with detail so I can use it for nature, car photos, wedding, landscaping! can someone please help me out with ideas. Price range is from $100-600"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot recommend one lens that is better at doing what you want and within your price range. However, I can recommend the following two lenses that cover the 18-55mm focal length range and are used by professional photographers to capture clear images with detail:</p>

<p>14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon<br>

24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon</p>

<p>These two are part of a trio. The 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikon is the third. However, these lenses are expensive and may not be a solution to your problem. The advice that other have given you should be followed before you try throwing money at your problem.</p>

<p> </p>