Recommendations for my second lens for a D80

[robert_reid1]

Hi there,

 

A few months ago I purchased a Nikon D80 Kit which came with an AF-S DX Zoom-

Nikkor 18-135mm lens. I absolutely love this camera and the lens that it comes

with. I am however interested in experimenting around with other lenses, and

was wondering if anyone had any recommendations? I generally take photos of

landscapes as I'm travelling. Should I be thinking about a Nikon lens, or one

from another manufacturer? I note the Nikon lenses seem to be more expensive

in comparison.

 

Any opinions/advice would be greatly appreciated.

[Matt Laur]

Are you finding yourself wishing you could get wider? Or are you wishing you had more long-range reach?

 

Something you might REALLY appreciate, if that 18-135 is your only lens, is something that has a much wider aperture, for use in lower light situations, or when you want very shallow depth of field. Hands down, there is no better choice at your stage than the exceptional Nikon 50mm f1.8. At roughly $100, it's pretty much of a given, I think. I know your current lens already covers that focal length, but I guarantee that the 50mm prime will alter the way you think about clarity, close-ups, background isolation, and more. Have fun!

[ShunCheung]

Robert, you can play this a number of ways. Since you mentioned landscape, the first thing that came to my mind is a wider, 12-24mm/f4 zoom, but Matt's suggestion to get a faster f1.8 lens is a good one as well.

 

IMO, as long as you feel that your 18-135 lens is great, I would hold off and not buy anything, until you realize that lens is no longer sufficient. By then, you should have a pretty good idea what to get to compliment the 18-135.

 

Additionally, it would be helpful if you can specify a budget for additional lenses.

[thomas_fiege]

Hi Robert,

 

I was in the same situation some month ago and I first started with the 50 f1.8 because it doesn't cost much. I use this lens for portray and low light situations. I love to play with the small DOF.

[cindyinatlanta]

Robert, I also have the D80. I just recently added the 50 f1.8 to my arsenal and LOVE it! My main reason for adding it is that I am going to Europe this fall and many of the old churches do not allow flash photography. That problem is mostly solved with this lense. It has really great capability in low light. At just around $100 you can't go wrong.

[abc_xyz2]

If you are going to take landscape pictures, I would strongly suggest a wide angle lens. The best one in my opinion is the sigma 10-20 HSM lens, I dont have the lens but I know I am going to get it pretty soon. It costs <500$ and should be well worth it.

[tim_knight]

Robert, I also suggest the 50/1.8. For the money it is the cheapest fast glass you will be able to buy. It teaches you to frame your shots using your feet instead of zoom. You will be amazed at the sharpness of this lens. What I like about this lens is being able to take indoor pictures without using the flash. The pictures are more natural looking and NO Red Eyes to fix when done.

[ShunCheung]

There is no doubt that the 50mm/f1.8 is very affordable and is great value for the money. My personal reservation with it is that it is a short tele on a DSLR such as the D80. It can be pretty good for portraits. As a travel lens or indoor lens, it seems long to me. I have been to churches and museums in Europe and South America, and the fast lens I want is a wide angle. Back in the days I shot 35mm film, I used a 35mm/f1.4 for that purpose. But that is me; your mileage may vary.

 

I am looking forward to finding out how the 50mm/f1.8 works for Cindy during the Italy trip.

[seandepuydt]

One thing that you may want to consider is what types of landscapes will you be taking. Where I live, and do most of my shooting, wide angle lenses are less important because of the terrain. I find that my 28-70 gives me the best range for my area. If you were out in Zion, then you need something wide. It all depends on what your use and needs are. - Sean

[jim_e.]

If you want a landscape lens, you don't want the 50/1.8. The Nikon lenses are worth the extra money and the 12-24/4 is an outstanding lens that will meet your requirements perfectly.

[Peter_in_PA]

You have basically four main choices when you add a lens to what you have (assuming you

don't get a bunch of primes).

 

1. Go wider for a 12-24 or 10-20.

2. Go longer for a 70-300 or some such.

3. Go faster for something with an f-stop below 2 for low light.

4. Go for something that focuses really really close (a micro or macro).

 

A lot of people have raved about the 50mm f1.8, especially at its low price. I'd go for it. In

fact, I did. I love it. I use it whenever I can.

 

You don't seem to be really looking for something close (although a micro is plenty fun) or

something long (also fun, especially, even for landscapes).

 

here's what I'd do. Shoot for a while with your lens and make note of when when you want

to go wider and how often it is. If it's often, get a super-wide!

[vivid_earth_photographics]

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - no brainer; everyone loves this $100 gem.

 

Nikon 35mm f/2.0 - fabulous walkaround lens with field of view like a 'traditional' 50mm lens had on 35mm film camera; about $320; I love it even more than the 50mm f/1.8

 

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - wide angle fun for 1/2 the price of the Nikon version; built like a tank for $500; some people say too much distortion at 12mm, but from 18-24mm this lens get raves.

[tonybeach]

Nikkor 8-200/2.8, which makes a better portrait and sports lens. Using a narrower FOV will get you thinking out of the box and facilitate the evolution of your photography. Shooting faster moving subjects hones your skills and helps with mastering the camera.

 

Tamron 90mm macro, because everybody should have some close-ups in their portfolio. Again, it expands your photographic possibilities and the experience enhances your compositional skills.

 

Tokina 12-24/4 for more dramatic perspectives, especially getting close to your subject. An obvious choice given your OP, but I would actually consider it the third lens and would probably concentrate more on software and lighting first. Instead, consider experimenting with stitching together panoramas (again, IMO a must have in every portofolio).

[ned1]

It's a no-brainer. Get the 50mm 1.4, NOT the 1.8.

 

First off, the wide f-stop means it will focus much better indoors, and if you open it up to F2 you'll be able to do some decent low light photography, something you can't do with your current lens or any zoom that goes for under $500.

 

And secondly, the 1.4 is a genuine professional lens. What does that mean for you? It means that it's resolution is good enough to match your 10mp sensor. Only the pro lenses can do this. And the 50mm 1.4 is the least expensive of Nikon's pro lenses.

 

If you find a pro who totes around all zooms except for one prime, this will be it (except for me. I carry around the 35 2.0)

[jim_e.]

How are you holding up under all this Robert? We've been able to narrow it down to a dozen or so choices for you.

[eric_arnold]

hi robert,

for landscapes, you wanna get wide, no bones about it. the tokina 12-24 is an excellent second lens and great for landscapes, wide vistas, horizons, etc. keep in mind you will want a circular polarizer with this, which at 77mm size isnt cheap. some people also like the sigma 10-20, but i havent used this lens so i cant comment.

 

after that, i'd look at the nikkor 50 1.8 -- perfect for a newbie -- for low-light and portrait use. from there, you'd probably want to go longer. if you're on a budget i'd say the 70-300 nikkor g, if not the nikkor 70-200 vr. your next purchases after that might be a nikon speedlight and a good tripod.

 

after that you can start looking at specialty lenses like the tamron 90 2.8, the nikkor 85 1.8, or a fisheye like the nikkor 10.5 and the tokina 10-17. if you find yourself shooting a lot of low-light you might want to look at a fast mid-zoom like the sigma 18-50 or the tamron 10-17 but if not, don't bother.

[hayward]

I think the progression is to get focal lengths that you don't already have and then get better quality and low light ability. Adding a 70-300mm really changes the photos you can get and the details you can isolate. Getting a 12-24mm allows you to tell the story and take in the whole expanse of what you are seeing. A good macro lens in the 90-105mm range will bring the world of close ups to you.

 

The 50mm f/1.8 and the like bring you into the world of high quality pictures and shots you can't get with consumer zooms. I think it makes sense to buy the less expensive items first, so I'd by like this:

 

1) Nikon 50 f/1.8 $120 or 50mm (top optics)

 

2) Nikon 70-300mm G $140 (so-so optics/nice long reach)

 

3) Nikon 50mm f/1.4 $250(if you don't go for #1)

 

4) Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro $400 (razor sharp; doubles as portrait lens)

 

5) Wide Angle Zoom $500+ (Tokina seems to be the budget choice. I don't have personla experience with it.)

[ned1]

If you get a 50 spend the extra seventy bucks and get the 1.4. No matter what you hear, the 1.8 is NOT top optics. There's only one other Nikon pro lens you can get for under $800, the 35mm 2.0, and the optics on that are no where near as good as the 50.

 

And consider getting lenses used from KEH or B&H.

[bruce_margolis]

"I generally take photos of landscapes as I'm travelling."

 

Is anyone seriously recommending a lens in the 70-300mm range for landscapes?

 

Robert, the 50mm is a neat lens -- I have one, too -- but I find it to be a bit long for landscapes generally. True, you can't go wrong with it and the optics are superb but I suggest you check out the focal length first. You can get a rough idea of the field of view by setting your lens to a 50mm focal length, then see how it looks to you.

 

And Cindy said, "My main reason for adding it is that I am going to Europe this fall and many of the old churches do not allow flash photography."

 

I was in Europe a couple months ago. When I reviewed my church photos, I was surprised to see that nearly all my photos inside were in the 12-24mm range regardless of lens. Well, only one lens is 12mm but you get the point. The 50mm was only good for specific shots, i.e., a statue, stained glass window, maybe an alter if the field of view was right.

 

Robert, if you really want landscape, think about a lens wider that what you have. There is a night-and-day difference between 18mm and 12mm or even 10mm. Budget, roughly $500-900+ (US). If possible, take a look at one in a store and especially compare the view to what you get with the 18mm you now have.