Lens recommendations for an amateur!

I got my a D3300 as my first DSLR. It came with an AF-S 18-55mm VR II and I bought an AF-S 35mm 1.8G.

 

What other lenses do you recommend and please explain what they are used for? I’m really clueless so please break it down for me lol. I plan to take photos of things up close, family/newborn baby and also panoramic/stars/vista photos.

 

Also I honestly bought the 35mm 1.8G lens because a lot of people swore by it and had amazing ratings in Amazon however what’s the best use for this lens? Same goes for the one that came with the camera.

 

Thanks in advance!

If "up close" means insects and stamps, then you'd probably need a macro lens, but if you just mean shots where faces fills the frame, then you are good to go with what you have.

I don't believe in buying more equipment before you are familiar with what you already have and know how it perhaps fails your requirements.

Your kit should be able to handle most situations, and getting to know it is the first step.

 

The 35mm is the equivalent to a "normal" lens, and is good for general photography, people etc. It is likely better than your zoom at the same focal length - and it allows more light to reach the sensor.

Whenever possible, it will be desirable to use the 35mm lens over the zoom, but you may find the zoom more practical in some situations - simply a matter of convenience over quality or vice versa.

Good luck with your setup.

The main benefit (for me) of your 35 / 1.8 is the compact size and the maximum aperture at f1.8. It allows you to take photos with a noticeable shallower depth of field compared to the zoom, that is, the subject is in focus while the back and front areas are out of focus. Or call it "selective" focus", you can emphasize a sharp interesting subject surrounded by blurred objects.

The 18-55 zoom is ideal for almost everything; it allows you to change the view, from wide to moderately narrow. You can choose to widen the field of view indoors to keep everything into frame at short distances, or to select a narrower view for portraits or distant details.

Friends who were at the same point as you, appreciated a longer zoom, usually a 55-200 or 55-300. Similar as yours but with a much higher reach, making possible to fill the whole frame with distant subjects; ideal for closer portraits, distant objects, sports, etc.

Edited November 30, 2020 by jose_angel

1. Mount the zoom
   
2. start shooting
   

After a week or two: Look at what you got out and start thinking.

I plan to take photos of things up close, family/newborn baby

Try doing so at the 55mm end of your zoom. Moving closer to your folks, to fill the frame with them, should help. If you(!) figure out that 55mm are too short, start shopping for something longer like 50-*whatever* or 70-*(maybe) something else*. Make sure to buy a VR lens.

The 50 (or 70) -### will frame tighter, let you take headshots from a greater distance. Nikon are most likely offering something for $200 and also something else for $2k+x. The latter will be a bit heavier and might feel unwieldy on your camera. Handling your next lens in a camera store makes sense!

Instead of a 70-300 (or whatever) you could also buy an 18-140 to avoid needing to change lenses. Image quality should be on par with what you have. Personally I'd rather have 2 zooms on 2 camera bodies instead of that but just one is more convenient to grab & carry.

If you really "need(!)" to buy something tonight; I'd recommend getting a flash gun. Yongnuo offers inexpensive ones for Nikon TTL.

I honestly bought the 35mm 1.8G lens because a lot of people swore by it and had amazing ratings in Amazon however what’s the best use for this lens?

Compared to the other one it is a one trick pony.

Get somehow familiar with your camera. Then one fine day take both lenses out, into your yard, set the zoom to 35mm and shoot them against each other.

• At f8 things might look the same (unless it was so dark that the lack of VR already induced camera shake...)
   
  
• at the zoom's widest aperture the 35mm should provide sharper results.
  
• At f1.8 everything besides the subject you focused on should look blurrier than within the zoom's aperture range.
  

While you are in your yard, take a series of pictures with VR off (or the 35mm mounted) to figure out which shutter speed you can hand hold.

 

Use cases:

• Laziness to carry the big heavy zoom
  
• With flash gun (mentioned above), when it is too dark for the camera to focus behind the zoom
  
• When you'd love the background blurrier
  

Since not everybody likes standard lenses, as a focal length to work with: They also work well as paper weights. - No intention to bash your purchase; I would have picked Tamron's 35mm, offering something like VR, instead &/ recommended or grabbed a 50mm, with portraiture in mind.

also panoramic/stars/vista photos.

Stars? - get a tripod

Panoramic? try your 18mm end and / or download some panorama stitching software and practice capturing sweep panoramas handheld. Once you are really sure that is neither enough nor working for you maybe ponder buying a wider lens. something 12-24, 10-##. But slow down! Take one step at a time. Make sure you are willing & eager to carry even more stuff. You could also get image quality obsessed in between and suddenly decide that your current sensor format isn't cutting it for you. In that case you'll have to buy all the other lenses once again for the new bigger camera.

I plan to take photos of things up close

I absolutely don't shout "100mm f2.8 VR macro!" alreaedy right now. Its an awesome lens. You might like a 60mm and Sigma's 150mm more, depending on the stuff you are interested in. Get started with what you have or a longer zoom. Think twice if you really want a real macro lens. The closer you get to small stuff the less DOF you'll have at hand. At some point you might need focus stacking (look it up and figure out if it is your cup of tea).

Use the 35mm as much as possible. If you need wider or longer, use the zoom.

 

If you find yourself frequently wanting either wider or longer than your zoom offers, then you'll know what your next lens needs to be.

Use what you have extensively, & only consider a new lens if you find your current two don't let you get the shots you want.

Kit zooms are designed to provide the most used focal lengths. An 18-55 would be rather limiting for wild birds where you'd need a much longer lens.

Some photographers like using lenses with a much wider view than your lens can manage, even going beyond 180° in some cases. These focal lengths tend to be difficult to compose well with, but there are a number of lenses to investigate if that's where you find you want to go.

Macro is another direction your photography might take, it's a challenging field especially if shooting 'true macro' (life size on the sensor). There are many options here particularly as it can be done with accessories rather than a dedicated lens.

 

If your existing zoom covers all the focal lengths you will use you MIGHT decide later on to upgrade it to a more expensive faster version, but there's no need to rush into this. After 10+ years of digital photography I still use kit zooms on all my cameras.

+1 for working with what you have and discovering any limitations.

 

The 18mm - 55mm range is a good 'walkabout' range for your camera. I have a full-frame equivalent that I use for 80% of my photos. According to this review, the lens is sharpest at the 35mm and 55mm range but less sharp at 35mm.

 

The AF-S 35mm 1.8G is a good 'standard' range for close-up family shots, street photography, etc. The 1.8 allows you to blur backgrounds in portraits and is great for low-light photography.

 

From what I read, both your lenses have a minimum focusing distance of under 1 foot. So I would try this out before splashing out on a macro lens.

 

Bear in mind that there's more to better photography than 'more kit'. Locations/Background, Lighting, Perspective, Composition, Digital Post-Processing, ...

It's also important to learn how to use your camera well so that you can adjust settings to the situation and the photo you want to take.

usually a 55-200

There are some very good deals around on the Nikon 55-200mm VR II. It's much better than the first version.

 

It's still very small and eminently carryable at 300gm.

Yes the kit zoom does focus pretty close. Even closer if used with a close-up lens mounted on the front. I've had surprisingly good results with close up lenses, using them on the 18-55 has the advantage of the VR being available - macro lenses tend not to have VR. Edited November 30, 2020 by John Seaman

This was the review I mentioned: Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II DX AF-S Nikkor Review. There are probably many others.

+2 for working with what you have and discovering any limitations

 

As you work with what you have, you will possibly discover what they can't do so well, but mostly the OEM cheaper lenses are more than just fine.

I had (still have actually) a D3200, and found the 18-55 lens quite decent within its range. If you're doing wildlife and the like, a longer zoom might be the next thing to consider, especially since some of them focus close enough that you can use them for things like insects and flowers at a discreet distance. I gave my 18-55 up because it actually wore out, and the replacement 16-85 had some advantages, but it was not appreciably sharper.

 

If you're finding the 18-55 a bit short, one option that works nicely is the 18-140, which can sometimes be found used at not too bad a price. It's good and sharp, more robustly made, and gives you a pretty decent range. Zooms that go wider (e.g. the 16-85 or the later 16-80) tend to be much more expensive for what you get, so I would not bother unless you are determined to get the extra width.

 

I had the 55-300, which I cannot recommend now, as it's slow to focus and has some other quirks, but you might look at the AF-P DX 70-300. The D3300 supports AFP lenses if the firmware is upgraded, I think. It comes in two types, one without VR and one with, and I think you'll really want the VR even though the non-VR one is inexpensive. 300 mm. is decently long on a DX camera, especially on something like the D3300, whose dense sensor allows you to crop in. Drawbacks notwithstanding, I found the 55-300 surprisingly good for things like butterflies. On my current D7100 I have the FX version of the 70-300, which has full switches on the body, and it's a very nice lens, but it's bigger and more expensive than the DX.

 

One other option might be a wider angle, but if you're comfortable with panoramas, it's less of an issue, since you can get that with stitching. If you haven't tried Microsoft's free program "ICE" for this, it's worth looking at. Newer versions support NEF files, and they make a nice looking panorama (they still save in JPG). You can get impressive pans with the 18-55. Closer shots suffer from various distortions if you just hand hold and move the camera, but further scenic ones can be surprisingly good. Handheld pans can need a lot of cropping to get them rectangular, so shoot with wider angles than you expect to need, and practice keeping the horizon at a consistent height. The newer ICE also has an "auto-fill" feature which, while it can make a mess of detail, can help avoid severe crops of corners where detail is lacking anyway, like sky and sea.

I'm with the others who strongly recommend using what you have, learning the full capabilities of those lenses all the while building your photographic knowledge so that at a later date you can make an informed decision on purchasing another lens to do what your current lenses can't as conveniently do. I understand, as a newbie, having a strong case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome), but much better to have an understanding of your good present gear before blowing your money on something else. How do I know...been there done that. I'm older and wiser finally!:p

Was just thinking back when I got my first "real" camera, a Nikon FM in around 1977.

 

Best thing I did was take a photography course to learn how to use the thing. Knowledge gained in that class still serves well even when using my cell phone camera.

Yup, fully agree.

 

However, another option is to find, ideally borrow, an 18-300mm superzoom, use it for a weekend trip, take loads of pictures of your usual targets with the compositional flexibility and freedom to try everything without changing lenses. Depending where you are in the World you might even be able to hire one very cheaply.

 

Then review, critically, what you took, esp. with regard to focal length, and to a lesser extent aperture.

 

There was (is?) an app called Exposure Plot that showed you a graphic breakdown of all the EXIF data parameters of a folder full of images. It would highlight, for example, if there's a tendancy one way or another, regarding focal length.

 

A landscapist would probably favour the wide end, with a few telephoto shots of interesting features.

 

A wildlife shooter would probably have a tendancy to the long end, with an occasional wide-angle vista 'scene setting' shot.

 

I'm generalising like crazy, but you get the idea. See what you actually use in real life.

 

If birds up trees are still way too small or you never get the panoramic 'vista' feeling, you know where to target your pennies in the future.

 

If you're always running into shooting wide open at ISO Crazy, at something longer than 35mm, maybe a faster long lens is in your future....:D

 

Importantly, everyone is different!

I got my a D3300 as my first DSLR. It came with an AF-S 18-55mm VR II and I bought an AF-S 35mm 1.8G.

 

What other lenses do you recommend and please explain what they are used for? I’m really clueless so please break it down for me lol. I plan to take photos of things up close, family/newborn baby and also panoramic/stars/vista photos.

 

Also I honestly bought the 35mm 1.8G lens because a lot of people swore by it and had amazing ratings in Amazon however what’s the best use for this lens? Same goes for the one that came with the camera.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

For what you shoot, the 18-55 may do everything you want.

As was said, go out and shoot.

Then if you find out that you need/want more magnification, because you can't get close enough to the distant subject, then start researching a longer lens, like a 50-200 or 70-300. Or if you find you can't do something, and need a different lens for it.

 

The reason you bought the 35 is the WRONG way to buy a lens.

You should determine a need or use for the lens before you buy it.

The lens should be a solution to a problem, not a solution looking for a problem.

 

Basically, don't buy gear until you hit a block, that you need a different lens to solve.

 

For me the 35/1.8 is my low light lens. I use it when the light level is too low for my general purpose zoom (18-140).

Specifically, I use the 35/1.8 to shoot volleyball and basketball in the gym. Were it not for that, I would not have bought that lens.

For what you shoot, the 18-55 may do everything you want.

 

(snip)

 

The reason you bought the 35 is the WRONG way to buy a lens.

You should determine a need or use for the lens before you buy it.

The lens should be a solution to a problem, not a solution looking for a problem.

 

Basically, don't buy gear until you hit a block, that you need a different lens to solve.

 

(snip)

 

For many years the AI 35-70 was my favorite with the Nikon FM (film camera), so that is

about 18-55 in crop sensor. It is not only a good range but also a nice size.

 

I don't completely agree with the "don't buy until you have a need", mostly because

it is hard to imagine what you might be able to do.

 

I do agree don't buy any expensive lens until you know. You might find some low priced

used lenses to play with, and get a better idea which ones you want to buy new.

(Or you might find that used lenses are just fine.)

 

One possibility is to rent one that you think you might want to buy, and get used

to what it does and doesn't do.

 

Personally, I was using my father's Canon rangefinder before buying an FM in 1979.

I liked the 35mm lens on that one, so bought the AI 35/2.0 with my FM.

 

But on the D3300, the 35mm lens is more line a 50mm lens on the FM.

 

Maybe the OP should use just the 35mm lens for some days,

and get used to what it does and doesn't do. Zoom lenses are fun, but

using that one will be good practice.

Many many years ago, when I fall in love with photography, the 50/1,8 was my only lens (is the equivalent of your 35mm lens , but in fullframe). An inexpensive set of macro extension rings open infinite possibilities and captivating exploring directions , making my sole lens more versatile. I remember with pleasure those hours I spend trying to capture on film small flowers and insects... Edited December 9, 2020 by paul_b.|1

The 18-55 is a good starter zoom, and the 35 is like a "normal lens." So from that perspective, both lenses are good.

My first camera had a "normal lens," and that is what I used for a couple of years. It did just fine.

 

As I said, shoot what you have, and see where you run into issues/limitations. That will tell you what you want to look at for the next lens.

 

Example1, I don't like to change lenses a lot, so my General Purpose lens is the wider range 18-140.

But the 18-140 is more expensive, larger, and heavier than the 18-55, so that is a negative of that lens.

 

Example2, If you cannot get close enough with the 18-55, you can look at a few options

• screw on close up lens/filters. Probably the cheapest way to get close up.
  
  • It screws onto the front of the lens, like a filter. So you need to get the correct diameter close up lens.
    

  [*]macro lens. Probably the most expensive way to get close up.

  • IMHO, a longer focal length (90 vs 40) is better, because you don't cast as much of a shadow, and it is easier to light the subject.
    

  [*]OLD manual macro lens. You have to learn how to manually focus the lens. This may or may not be a problem for you.

  • I don't do macro enough to justify an autofocus macro, so I bought an old manual micro Nikkor.
    

Example3. If you want to take pics of animals at the zoo, you may need a longer lens (50-200 or 70-300), to get more magnification of the distant animal.

 

So, again, shoot what you have, and keep notes on what limitations you run into.

After a few weeks/months, look at the notes and see what the issues/limitations are. Then think if a lens to solve that limitation is worth it or not.

Where's the OP gone?