What lens to buy next?

[dan_tybor]

I'm an amature that doesn't specialize in any particular type of photography.

Pretty much I like to carry my camera around the city and take random pictures

of people, building, etc. Living in Colorado, I also take a mix of mountain

pictures and nature when I'm hiking. In a month I'm planning on taking a trip

to Utah and the Grand Canyon so having an additional lense to complement my

current setup would be nice.

 

Currently I'm using a Nikon D80 with the kit 18-135mm lens. I also have a

50mm f/1.8. I have a few ideas of what sort of lens to buy next, however I

figured I would get some feedback from this forum to get other people's

suggestions. As there is no shortage of knowledge on this website and no

shortage of opitions, I would really like to hear what people think as well as

how others pregessed in their lens purchases from amature to serious amature.

My prior experience in photography has been a fully manual film camera with a

50mm lens. I've learned that there is a lot more I can do with my composition

and creativity depending on what lense I'm using.

 

After reading through this forum, here are some prospects(~$500 budget):

 

Wide angel - Tokina 12-24mm f/4.0 ($500)- This seems like a great lense to

expend my knowledge of landscape photography as well as the dynamic effects it

offeres on the wide end. It also covers a range I currently do not have. I'm

questioning how much I'll actually use this lens. It also seems a bit slow.

I've also seen either extremely exceptional or extremly mediocre photos from

this lens due to the difficutly composing good pictures with such a wide angle.

 

Macro - Sigma 105mm f/2.8 or Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 ($400) - I like this lens

since I will be able both use it as a macro as well as a prime telephoto.

I've never done macro so that seems like an interesting avenue to explore. I

will also be able to use it for landscapes. The down side is that I already

have that focal length covered with my current zoom lens.

 

Telephoto - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G VR ($500) - Seems like a good lens to

extend my reach. I'm just worried that I may outgrow this lense quickly and

what a faster and longer lens that may be far out of my budget.

 

What do you think? Any other suggestions? Yes I know it's another one of

these "what should I get next" posts , but I like to here what other people

think. Thanks!

[SCL]

Figure out specifically what you want to do next which you feel you cannot accomplish with your present lenses, and then get one which fits the bill. Otherwise you'll become a jack of all trades and a master of none.

[robert_hooper1]

Since you mention landscape and architecture as a large part of your picture taking subject

matter, and you are planning a trip to the Grand Canyon, I suggest getting the 12-24mm as

your next lens. You have a pretty good reach with the 135mm end of your 18-135mm lens

for now. If you can afford the Nikon 12-24mm, I would recommend getting it.

[michaelging]

I think Stephen hit the nail right on the head. I see these post in every forum almost every day. What should my next lens be? I am not picking on you Dan, but you are the only one who can really decide that. I started out with a 50 mm lens that came with my Nikon F. When I kept backing up to get more into the photo , I bought a wide angle lens to meet this need. When I wanted to take portraits of people , and the photos looked distorted when I got close, I bought a short Telephoto .I think the type of photography that you shoot, and which photographic tools are need to get the photo you see in your mind, is how you should buy photo equipment, not the other way around.I hope you do not take this as a personal attack Dan,That is not how I mean it to be.

[johnw63]

Remember, most landscape shots will be of NONE MOVING stuff, and most shots will be in the F8 to F11 sort of range. Having a speedy F2.8 lens will be a big waste of money. ( OK. There is the idea that fast glass is BETTER glass, but Nikon and others have made some real nice lenses that are NOT F2.8 as well. ) . Now, if you get into wildlife stuff and want to open up to blow out the background, then you may want to look for faster glass.

[dan_tybor]

No offense taken Michel. I think the point I'm trying to make is that I have three avenues of photography I'm considering exploring: wide angle/landscape/architecture, macro/landscape, or long telephoto. The equipment to fulfill those needs I listed is from the information I've gathered so far on photo.net. I'm looking for the best avenue for learning and experimenting with new ways of composition. I'm obviously not going to base my decision solely on what people tell me, but to see how others may have progressed as they became more serious about photography and what lens offers the best progression.

 

By the way, I know you see this post every day, but there's definitly no shortage of people willing to respond which is a good thing :)

[tonybeach]

Grand Canyon and Utah, eh? Wide angle is the obvious choice.

[jdrose]

12mm-24mm DX Zoom

 

50mm 1.8 or 1.4

 

180mm 2.8, Always, always invest in superb glass.

 

"Beauty is remembered long after cost is forgotten"

 

Enjoy the Grand Canyon. Fantastic place.

[elliot1]

Wide angel - Tokina 12-24mm f/4.0 ($500)- good choice for wide angle if you can't afford Nikon's. Keep in mind the difference from 12 to 18mm is 2, 3, maybe 4 steps farther back from your subject Do you find youself needing to backup more and not having the room when you are at 18mm? If you don't, you may not need this lens. But it is a great range to own, especially on digital.

 

Macro - Sigma 105mm f/2.8 or Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 ($400) - Stick with NIKON on this one - You can get the non-VR version D lens for about the same price (used)

 

 

Telephoto - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G VR ($500) - Some people like it, some don't. Buy it from a store you can return it to if you don't. JD got it right. The 180 will give you the reach and quality you need, and with 10mp, you have plenty of cropping room to bring you to the equivalent to 400mm 500mm and beyond without loss in picture quality. You can also put a 1.4x converter on it with very little loss in quality and still have a fast lens. Another affordable choice is Nikon's 300mm F4 AF lens. I have this one. Really nice. And with the 1.4x (Kenko), I get the reach I want with good image quality.

[carl_becker2]

I have a setup similiar to JD and love it. The 180mm is a fine lens with slow focus if that matters, I don't think its reach is enough for small animals. I would recommend the Nikkor 300mm f4 as a very high quality lens. If you need more reach use a 1.4 TC. Birding will probably require even more reach though. I don't see f4 as a problem for wide angle lens with landscape. City shoots may be different but the cost for speed will go up for something like the 17-35 f2.8. I recommend getting the best glass you can even if it limits what you purchase. I am comfortable buying used and half my lens are used. If I really don't want the lens I resell it. With good glass and research this rarely happens.

[janvanlaethem]

I agree with Stephen, never buy a lens just for the sake of it. Only if you constantly find that you are limited by the lens or lenses you currently own, then it's time to buy another lens.

 

I almost exclusively use the following lenses on my film cameras: 24mm, 50mm and 105mm macro. I also have a 200mm and a 2x converter if I want to go a bit longer.

 

For architecture and landscapes, I use the 24mm. 18mm on a DSLR is pretty close (equivalent to a 27mm lens). If you really need wider than that, get the 12-24mm. As has been pointed out above, to get the best quality you should be working on a tripod and stop the lens down to f/11 to increase depth of field, so a maximum aperture of f/4 is not really going to be a drawback.

 

Your 50mm f/1.8 makes a nice short telelens on your DSLR, with low light capability as a bonus.

 

IMHO, the 135mm focal length of your zoom lens should be long enough to tackle most subjects or to pick out details. If you need something longer, some excellent choices have been pointed out already.

 

Macro is a completely different area, if you have a genuine interest you will need a true macro lens with 1:1 magnification ratio. Again, be prepared to work on a tripod and at intermediate aperture settings, as depth of field will be extremely shallow.

 

My advice to you is to determine your priorities (macro, architecture, landscapes, people or wildlife) and then decide which lens will suit you best.

[tonybeach]

Elliot wrote:

 

Keep in mind the difference from 12 to 18mm is 2, 3, maybe 4 steps farther back from your subject.

 

My reply:

 

The difference is a 50% wider FOV, and that's dramatic. Often you want to get closer to your subject and push to the limits (or beyond) of the hyperfocal distance. Sometimes, you are shooting subjects that are a mile away, zooming with your feet would mean you would have to step back half a mile to attain the same FOV with an 18mm lens as you would with a 12mm lens. If you know what you're doing, there is no replicating wider angle optics. For panoramas though you may want to consider zooming closer and standing back to avoid linear distortions from making stitching the images together very problematic; having a pano head mounted on your tripod can help though.

[sampson]

Hi Dan,

 

For me, when I was starting (I think I will always feel that way) and trying to figure out what lens to buy or trying to predict what 'type' of photography I would like to pursue I found it the most helpful to look through photo books. Whether they be the annual Time magazine photos, or the best of National Geographic etc. I just looked through, and saw what types of photography I would like to 'mimic' the most.

 

Time and time again, there were two types of images that kept striking a chord with me, the best of photojournalism (which I think is more in the eyes of the photographer, and has less to do with equipment), and the three-dimensionality in pictures shot with an ultra-wide angle perspective. Hence for me, the choice was quite clear.

 

In this example, even if I used my foot zoom to back up and get more of the scene in front of me, it would be impossible to get the exaggerated near-far perspective without using an ultra-wide. Again, easy choice for me, since I knew that I needed different tools to achieve what I wanted to do photgraphically. Now the problem is actually putting to film (err digital sensor) what my minds eye sees.

 

Hope this helps, I always enjoy a good 'what lens to buy next' feeling, sorta exciting.

 

Cheers!

[marek_fogiel]

What you have covered already is the equivalent of 27-200mm. To my mind you might as well keep the money and try to shoot with these. I am convinced Ansel Adams never had such a wide choice of angles to shoot with, yet his photos are difficult to match even in today's wonderzoom era. If you are after lanscape, you HAVE to try wider angles - the 12-24 Nikkor or Tokina. Having said this, I think you should really see what works for you. Most people would shoot in the 35-85mm equivalent range in 90% of their shots, and 9 out of remaining 10 % with a wider angle, but only you can know what gives you a kick.

[terry foster]

Hi Dan, i am no expert, i recently got the the Sigma 10-20,1:4-5.6 dc, hsm, great wide angle lens for the money, also purchased a 24-70 2.8 dg macro, great for potrait, and indoors without flash, but crap for landscapes. The 10-20 will give great results for landscape, and also the dynamic affects at 10mm focal lenth will more than please you. Hope this helps. Regards a not a expert PN member :-)

[tonybeach]

Marek wrote:

 

Most people would shoot in the 35-85mm equivalent range in 90% of their shots, and 9 out of remaining 10 % with a wider angle...

 

My reply:

 

Most statistics are made up. According to your numbers 99% of photographs are taken at less than 86mm. I simply had to do a statistical analysis of my last two months of posted photos at my online gallery, and it turns out that only 2% of my shots were taken in the focal range (adjusted for format) that you have said represent most people's photography, with 49% taken with longer focal lengths and 49% taken with shorter focal lengths.

 

BTW, I really hate it when people use "equivalents" to describe focal lengths in the DX format. I have never heard this done with MF and LF focal lengths; and it would be just as confusing and unhelpful to speak of DX equivalents in the 35FF format. My online gallery EXIF info does this also, and it's positively useless; I would rather see the horizontal FOV expressed in degrees (format neutral as it were).

[eric_pollinger]

Dan,

 

None of these lenses will meet your needs. You need to factor in general functionality, utility, and practically. The photographers on this forum are trying to help but they are limited by a clear lack of general experience and vision. What you need is the Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4D ED-IF II. After the 50mm this is clearly the next lens a 'real' photographer should consider.

 

-Eric

[tonybeach]

Eric, you're funny:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4905543

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3408204

[eric_pollinger]

Thanks Anthony

 

On a more serious note Dan, if it were me, I would suggest either the 70-300 as I enjoy getting in close and have found a tele zoom invaluable for the kind of photography I do (lots of people) or the Tokina 28-80 2.8 - I know that your 50 is in that range but this is the lens I have on the camera most of the time and it is great for Landscape. I have the Tokina 12-24 and, though a great lens, I find myself using the ultra wide angle effect less frequently. However, I do enjoy the Nikon 105 Macro lens but really only play with macro a couple of times a year (the lens never comes out otherwise).

 

For me - Photographing 1) People, 2) Landscape, 3) Other (pretty much in that order) here is the order I would suggest purchasing...

 

50 1.4

Mid Range Zoom - 2.8

Tele (80-200 2.8) or the 70-300 on a budget

105 Macro

Wide Angle Zoom

300 f4 - this can be a fun lens if you have uses for it

 

The one thing that I would suggest is that as you start looking into other lens don't forget about the 50mm. I kept that thing locked up for 2 years before I 'rediscovered' it. With its speed you can get away with a lot in low light and it is so light.

 

Good Luck,

-Eric