Lens Upgrade

<p>i have d3200 with kit lens 18-55mm VRII and i want to move my next lens please suggest me which lens best for all kind photography like landscape, wedding, street, candid and bokeh.<br>

means 1 all rounder lens for all purpose. <br>

i have selected 1 lens plz tell me its best for me after 18-55 or not</p>

 

<h1 >SIGMA 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS HSM</h1>

<p>If You are going to keep the 18-55mm, adding this 50-200mm might make sense. If You are going to replace 18-55mm with one lens, it might be wise to consider something else. Perhaps 17-55mm f/2.8 nikkor or 17-50mm f/2.8 sigma or tamron.</p>

<p>"Better" than the kit lens, the AFS 17-55/2.8. Also heavier and bulkier. The main benefit is the faster constant aperture along the range, good for creative possibilities (background blur) and better AF (low light focus).<br /> Another choice, the 16-85VR with a slight larger focal range and still a reasonable size. If you want just one lens, this might be a good substitute. But speed wise, it is not so different from the lens you already have.<br /> But I have a question... Why do you want a "better" lens? It`ll help to give you a better advice.</p>

<p>I think you will get many answers recommending just about anything from 10-24 to 18-300 zooms.<br>

Personally, I would most probably find the "tank-built" Nikkor AFS 17-55/2.8 too heavy on the D3200.<br>

The 16-85 has already been mentioned, it is an intersting option, if you want to go slightly wider. If not the 18-140 could be an alternative since it gives you more reach. The 35/1.8 could also do as the only lens for lots of photographers.</p>

<p>If I were planning to purchase a DX system today from the ground-up, this would be my ideal DX lens set-up:</p>

<p>• Nikon D3200/3300/5300/5500 body 'A' + Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 HSM ($799 USD).<br />• Nikon D3200/3300/5300/5500 body 'B' + Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS HSM ($800-$1,000 USD, used; discontinued).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>means 1 all rounder lens for all purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only lenses that come reasonably close are the superzooms (lenses as the 18-200 or 18-300), which are optically not that great, and they don't do "bokeh" very well, and they're lousy choices for events and weddings as well.<br>

"Bokeh" is not a style of photography; it is (usually) about having little depth of field, which causes the subject to be sharp, and the rest of the photo blurred. To obtain this effect, you need lenses with a wide aperture (meaning f/2.8 or less). Lenses with wide apertures always have limited zoomrange (i.e. 17-50, 70-200 - but never a 18-200). So, you will always have to make a choice between the convenience of a lens with a wide zoom range, or lenses with the creative freedom to play with depth of field. (Bokeh, by the way, refers to how good the out of focus regions looks - so it really is something different).<br>

For weddings, you often work in low light, where you need to keep shutterspeeds up - to do so, large aperture again is a big benefit. This explains that most so far adviced f/2.8 lenses. They would make your best choice, but they do tend to cost quite a bit more, and some of them are large and heavy.<br>

Candids - often focal lengths longer than 55mm. Street - little reason why a 18-55 can't do that just fine.</p>

<p>Without knowing your budget, without know whether you want to be able to zoom in more than your 18-55 allows, it is impossible to say if these lenses make the right choice. And the 18-55 is not that bad a lens anyway - as Jose, I'd like to understand what are the reasons you think you need to replace it?</p>

<p>Anyway, to get the best from a DSLR, you have to change lenses every now and then if you want to cover a wide range of subjects. Frankly, forget about getting 1 lens for all purposes, but determine better for yourself where the priorities are (shallow depth of field, zoomrange) and what you budget is. That will make it a lot easier to come up with specific recommendations.</p>

<p>+1 Ralph.</p>

<p>....and if the OP wants to go into sports then add the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS... and cancel the weights session at the gym...:-)</p>

<p>Although, body wise, I<em> might</em> go for the D7200 for the improved AF. My D5300 isn't great.</p>

<p>I've got a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8/4, but will be swapping for a 17-50mm 2.8 OS soon. Although I'll probably wait for a Contemporary or Art version lens for the USB dock. My copy is just not that sharp, esp at the wide edges.</p>

<p>Sigma or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I would get one that has image stabilization (Tamron = VC, Sigma = OS.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>What do you NOT like about the lens you have now? Specifically. What kind of shots are you missing that you don't want to miss? And how are you actually using your photos? (printing? what size? on-screen?)</p>

A 55-200 lens isn't an upgrade to an 18-55. It's a companion. It doesn't have any wide angle.

 

If you're pleased with your 18-55 but want to add a telephoto, get a Nikon 55-200 VR. If you don't like the 18-55, tell us a

bit about why you don't like it and what you want to improve. Otherwise you just get people telling you what their favorite

lens is.

<p>It is not clear what aspect you want to upgrade. Is it aperture, it is build quality, is it focal length, is it sharpness, is it contrast? Or do you simply want to add a lens to your kit?</p>

<p><em>lens best for all kind photography like landscape, wedding, street, candid and bokeh.</em></p>

<p>This is a tough call, as there is no one "best" lens for even one application, let alone "all". I would recommend two lenses: Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX and the VR AF-S Nikkor 70-200/4G as a general purpose, high quality lens kit if you're ambitious about image quality in the DX format and if you prefer zooms. Or, you can consider third party solutions in place of one or both of these lenses, but I haven't used those enough to give a recommendation. The 17-55 Nikkor in my opinion has one of the finest balances between sharpness and bokeh in any standard zoom.</p>

<p>The 16-85 DX is often recommended (and would be a quite good lens for landscape) but as a small aperture lens there isn't much out of focus blur to talk about, whereas the 17-55 by contrast is very good in that respect in as far as zooms go (but has some issues for landscape because of its field curvature). Also, weddings include low light situations in the church a lot of the time and having at least one f/2.8 lens is the bare minimum for that; faster would be better. A pair of f/1.8 primes (wide + short tele) might work even better; you may pick from e.g. 20/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 Nikkors.</p>

<blockquote>Otherwise you just get people telling you what their favorite lens is.</blockquote>

<p>Actually, when he mentioned weddings, that's when I very specifically mentioned affordable mid-range f2.8 zooms. Neither the Sigma or Tamron are my personal favorite (I don't own either), but they will do the job OP specified at a price I think he'll pay.</p>

<p>--->Match the lens to the use.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p>

<p>i understand the lens after reading all your comment and thx again for that.<br>

actually bokeh is my favrt so i want to purchase widest aperture lens.<br>

thx guys </p>

<p>"Bokeh" refers to how a lens renders the out of focus area. All lenses have "bokeh" unless you are photo'ing something that will have no out of focus area, such as copying a 2D flat print. I think what you are meaning is you want a lens that can make photos with very limited depth of field, to blur out the background. That's what a "fast" lens does, such as the f2.8 zooms mentioned above. The faster the lens, the more the blurring. My fasted lens is f1.2. With that I have to be careful that I don't get a photo where a person's nose is sharp but their eyes are not. This is often called "selective DoF." Bokeh refers to the quality of how what's not in focus appears. It's a very elusive, subjective thing, sort of like wine tasting. I don't often use the term myself, generally, since it's hard to quantify.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>actually bokeh is my favrt so i want to purchase widest aperture lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you are interested in bokeh, subject isolation and defocused effects, i would a) recommend a prime lens and b) recommend a longer lens (for compression) off-top. none of the standard zooms, even the 2.8 ones, have better than average bokeh. also, wide lenses tend to have pretty crappy bokeh. my best bokeh lenses are: sigma 50/1.4 HSM, tokina 100/2.8 macro, sigma 85/1.4 HSM, nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII, sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM (non-OS). i have used the tamron 17-50, the sigma 17-50, the tamron 28-75, and the nikon 24-70, all 2.8. none excel in the bokeh category.</p>