New to Photography and New to Nikon - Suggestions Wanted!

[melinda_gaus]

Hi guys...

 

I've been a lurker here for some time, and finally decided to take the dive.

 

I've also just taken my first photography course and am delving into the world

of photography. Something I've always been interested in, but never really

took steps into.

 

All I have right now is a Sony digital point and shoot I purchased about 2

years ago.

 

After much reading and researching, I think I've finally settled on Nikon. I

hope to be purchasing a D80 sometime in the near future. It seems to have a

lot of what I want... various settings, including full manual as I slowly get

more brave and comfortable with controls.

 

I've gone back and forth on getting the lens that comes with the kit. It

probably isn't the best.

 

I've been looking at some alternate lenses. Funny, it reminds me of

engagement ring shopping. Pick the ring setting, pick the diamond, and

combining for your perfect ring. Picking a camera body and lens seems to be

done just the same way!

 

I'm trying to find one good lens I can use for awhile. Unfortunately, I'm

pushing the budget limit on the camera itself, so I can't quite run out and

buy 3 or 4 more lenses. (Man, I picked an expensive hobby!)

 

The lens that I currently have my eye on is the Nikon 60mm f/2.8. With my

point and shoot, I tend to use the macro function a lot. I think this is

really cool photography, hence my lens choice. There are good reviews on

Amazon. There is a step up 105mm, I think. But I can't quite afford that

much.

 

Is this camera/lens a good purchase idea? I'd also like to use this lens for

things other than macro only. Since I can only afford one, I'd like to use

this lens as your "regular ol' lens" to take birthday photos and such.

 

I'm trying to combine a good basic "first timer" lens and also incorporate a

lens good for macro experimentation.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks! And "hi" from a newbie.

[Matt Laur]

Melinda: The 60/2.8 micro is indeed a fantastic lens... but you might find yourself feeling rather frustrated by the focal length. You won't, for example, be able to get a full-length shot of someone standing in the same room with you unless you step back from them more than 15 feet. If, though, some portraiture and actual macro-type-stuff is calling to you, I'd get it. But I'd also see if you can skip a few lattes and get perhaps the 18-70 kit lens. They're available in good condition, used, very inexpensively. Believe me, you'll be very glad to have the wider end of that lens's range.

[briany]

I wouldn't spend my money on the 60mm macro. Autofocus isn't much good for true macros. For $120 you can get a bargain grade 55mm f/2.8 macro lens from KEH (don't worry about "bargain" grade - it's almost guaranteed to be very good, and you can always return it). Add in an 18-70mm and you have a nice two lens setup for less than $500. The 60mm marco is a good lens, but having only that lens would be, for most people, a very limiting choice.

[joseph_smith3]

Th new Nikon 60mm macro lens ought to be a good one as long as your subjects are static and are under your control. However, you might find that macro lenses with a longer focal length are more useful. See here for more info: http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/

 

One lens you might want to consider is the Nikon 105 AF macro lens, the older one not the newer VR G lens. Of course if you choose this lens, you limit your ability to cpture those things needing a focal lengtth less than 105mm.

 

Try and find money to add a 18-70mm dx lens into your budget. Joe Smith

[zmilin]

HI! Are You entering pro waters in photography? I have Nikon D80 and I think it is fit for entry pro level... Regarding your budget I suggest that you go on Nikon D40X and rest of money spend on some quality lense (on the budget) which will cover 17-70 range... I have sigma which is quite nice for money it costs. I hope this helps... Regards, Zeljko Milin.

[peter_nelson1]

I have the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 and it's an outstanding lens. But if it will be your only lens I'm a little concerned that it might not give you much versatility, and it's a little long for general purpose use - equivalent field-of-view to a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

How "macro" do you need to get? The Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 will focus to 16 inches which will give you 1:3.7X according to Bjorn Rorslett.

[kohanmike]

I had to make the same decision a couple of years ago with a D70s, so I finally settled on

the AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D Macro (1:2), about $550 from Adorama or B&H. I'm very happy

with the lens. I do macro, portrait, candid, concert and such and find it to satisfy my needs

very well. I later filled in with a Tokina 12-24 f/4, and Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6

VR, each $500 and second D70s. Check a variety of samples on my site:

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/samples_24_85.htm

[ronald_moravec1]

The 105 is not a step up, just longer focal length better suited to a full frame camera.

 

A normal or standard lens is 35mm on the D80, so the 60 is a short tele which back inthe film days was the recommended second lens.

 

People are selling zooms today, but prime lenses have their virtues. They are definately made better than than cheap kit zooms and take pictures in dimer light.

 

A 35 2.0 and 60 or 55 2.8 would not be a bad two lens set up. Add a 24 sometime in the future if you need a wider lens. That would be the equivalent of classic lens set up for 35mm film cameras.

 

I like my 60 as it is a very good micro lens and very good portrait lens. I keep thinking I will add the 105, but I don`t know. It is a bit long for a small sensor camera like the 80. I will probably keep using my Leica 90 and 135 on the D200.

[crabseye]

I made almost the same choices as Michael Kohan: the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4, the Tokina 12-24, and the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. Some time later I added the 50mm f/1.4 for indoor available light shooting, and the Tamron 90mm macro lens.

 

The Nikon 24-85 has a macro setting, though it's not the best macro in the world. The 50mm f/1.8 and Tamron 90mm macro lens would be a great startup pair of lenses (or substitute the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for more on the wide end).

[rarmstrong]

I agree with Matt that you will feel very limited with just the 60 mm lens. I think you'll want to have something that will give you a wider view for general use. The 24-70 f2.8 has received good reviews.

[juanjo_viagran]

if you can stretch your budget a bit get the 60mm 2.8G micro...

 

 

is absolutely AWESOME, you have the best of both worlds, a SUPER SHARP Micro lens and a SUPER FAST AF lens.

you can't ask for more from one lens..;)

[bernie moore]

Melinda. Read the post just before yours. Dave Lee just got a 16-45 3.5 and has some pics taken today. Seems to me that the lens performs quite well. Regards, Bernie

[melinda_gaus]

Thanks!

 

I'm surprised by all the answers already. Quick response.

 

Also, thanks for letting me know that I will probably feel limited with the 60mm and suggesting others. Looks like I have more research to do.

 

I've always had that photography "bug". Trying to take creative shots even with just a point and shoot. Or even just walking around saying "oh... that would make a great photo!" I finally decided to just go for it.

 

If I ever had the chance to be a pro, that would be a really fun career. But for now I need to get started as a good hobbiest.

[peter_nelson1]

Juanjo Viagranphoto.net says . . . <br>

<i>if you can stretch your budget a bit get the 60mm 2.8G micro... is absolutely AWESOME, you have the best of both worlds, a SUPER SHARP Micro lens and a SUPER FAST AF lens. </i><br><br>

 

I'm sorry, but f/2.8 is not "SUPER FAST". I would call f/2.8 and f/2 "Fast" but I wouldn't start adding "super" until you were in the 1's - 1.4, 1.2, etc.<br><br>

 

 

Bernhardt Moorephoto.net says . . .

<br><i>

Melinda. Read the post just before yours. Dave Lee just got a 16-45 3.5 and has some pics taken today. Seems to me that the lens performs quite well. Regards, Bernie</i><br><br>

The D80's performance at higher-ISO's is nothing to write home about, so I would aim for a lens that's f/2.8 across its range. I realize that's only a half-stop but every little bit helps.

[tim_knight]

Melinda, With a tight budget your options are to sell something to raise more money or buy the D80 with a 18-70 and continue to use your Sony for macro or in reverse get the 60f/2.8 and use yor sony for other shots until you can afford your second lense. Good luck and keep asking questions on this sight.

[JAPster]

Hi Melinda. The gods have answered already, so my opinion, as an amatuer will be now offered, and i'll speak generally.

 

a. You are buying a digital camera (d80). So stick with a digital lens ( look for the secret code DX ).

 

b. Get a lens with VR (vibration reduction). This is useful when shooting in handheld situations. Less useful when you lock it down on a tripod. Look for the secret code VR in the label.

 

c. Stick with Nikon brand. If you switch to 3rd party brands you might run into compatibility issues when trying to use some features on your camera.

 

d. On a 35mm film camera, 50mm is considered 'normal' focal length cause it renders a view close to what is rendered by the human eye. Less than 50mm is considered Wide Angle, and going out beyond 50mm is considered zoom. If you get just one lens, get one that will therefor cover Wide Angle to Normal to Moderate Zoom. Something like a 35 to 200 would fit this description.

 

advice from the trenches.

 

AP

 

Atlanta GA

[dbcooper]

Because it'll be your first DSLR, you probably haven't realized that the body is relatively unimportant. Your big investment with any DSLR will be the glass, and software.

 

Do yourself a favor, and find a good, used D50 or D70s (either will do manual mode, and don't get fooled - 6mp is plenty for up to 11"x17" prints...more with certain software), and spend the money you saved on the body and get the Nikon 18-200 DX VR zoom. It'll cover over 99% of what you'll want to shoot (including a very respectable job of macro due to its ability to close-focus).

 

You'll be able to shoot all kinds of nice images with that outfit, you'll have vibration reduction for low-light handheld shots, and an equivalent 35mm film camera zoom range of 27-300mm. That's incredible when you really stop and think about it. You also won't get much of a sensor dust problem from changing lenses, because you won't need to do it very often.

 

I have that lens, and originally got it for a D-70s (I paid over list price for it when they were hard to get, and have never regretted getting it). I've used it on a D200 for over 18 months now, and this summer, I'll upgrade again to a D300 and will still use that lens. When you upgrade bodies (and if you stick with photography, you will), you want to have lenses you can just 'take along' for the new body, so keep that in mind whenever you purchase a lens, and buy for the long-term.

 

Macro lenses are a luxury item...they're a one-trick pony. All they do really well is take macro shots. If you dump your budget on one, that's all you'll be able to do, and the novelty of it will wear off soon enough - then you'll be stuck. Wait a year or so, and take lots of close-up shots with another lens before you drop the money on a macro. You can get great macro results with a close-up filter kit for a LOT less money, at least until you figure out that's what you REALLY want to specialize in. Do yourself and your budget a favor, though, and get a nice zoom lens that'll cover a lot of photographic territory, especially for a first lens. And the best, most versatile DX zoom Nikon makes is that 18-200 VR.

 

Not convinced? In the forums here (and elsewhere on the web) how many comments or posts have you seen from people (that ACTUALLY OWN the 18-200VR) saying they either don't like it or that they regretted getting it?

 

Good luck with your photography. Don't be scared, don't be intimidated, experiment lots, and above all, enjoy it!

[keith_leonin]

<i>I wouldn't spend my money on the 60mm macro. Autofocus isn't much good for true macros. For $120 you can get a bargain grade 55mm f/2.8 macro lens from KEH -- Brian</i>

<p><p>

But you do want the in-camera metering, and a 55mm will NOT meter with a D80.

<p><p>

Melinda - is there a particular reason that you want the D80? Nice camera, but if you have budget constraints AND you want a 60mm macro PLUS the fact that you need some all around lenses, I would suggest looking at the D40 + the two kit lenses AND get that 60mm as well. It won't autofocus with the D40, but you'd be able to meter. And, IT IS a fantastic macro lens.

<p><p>

Once you get more into macros, you will likely start exploring lighting options, and that's is an area where Nikon really shines.

<p><p>

Check out <a href="http://klix.smugmug.com">MY GALLERY</a>. If you scroll toward the bottom, you'll see some of my macro galleries.

<p><p>

Cheers!

<p><p>

Keith

[nolan_ross]

I would buy the Nikon D80 with the 18-135mm kit lens. A 4gb flash card, extra battery, camera bag, and a sb600 flash. That will set you back around $1300 maybe a bit more. The 18-135 lens is a good all around lens without macro. After you shoot for a while then you can think of the next step. The 60mm macro is a very nice lens but it would not be great as your only lens. Besides macro photography requires a tripod which is another thing in it self ($200 and up)

I suppose you could purchase the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D lens from Nikon. It has a 1:2 macro function (1:2 macro, not a true macro). I own the lens and use it a lot for general photography, flowers, jewelry, watches etc.. It's very nice for only $239.00. You would lose the wide angle over the 18-135mm but it might be worth it to you to get a usable macro function. I love wide angle photography myself but have a 12-24mm lens that I use for that. You just cannot buy it all at once. It takes years to develop a good system of euipment. Yes it's expensive. No matter what I do in life it's double fun with a camera along..

[squiggs77]

If you like macro, but don't want to limit yourself in other areas, I have a couple of suggestions that might suit you on a limited budget.

 

Get a nice all around lens such as the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, or the Nikon 18-70mm.

 

Then get a nice closeup filter such as the Nikon 6T or Canon 500D.

 

And lastly as a bonus lens get the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for portraits and low light stuff.

 

With that for a kit you'll get much better photos than with your Sony, you can be more creative, and can learn more about what other lenses you really want without spending a bunch of money on a lens that you'll regret buying later.

 

NOTE: The Tamron 17-50mm and the Nikon 50mm won't autofocus on a D40/D40x/D60

[juanjo_viagran]

Peter,

 

when I say "SUPER FAST AF lens" I mean that the Auto Focus of the lens is SUPER FAST, which it is.

 

maybe I use the wrong sentence.

[rduran]

Melinda,

 

Buy the camera and just two lenses: one all-purpose (like 18-200 VR or 16-85 VR) and one for macro (there are many of them out there), and start shooting ASAP. After every session of pictures, try to evaluate your results: find your weakness and show your successes. Learn from every picture.

 

With time, you will develop you own style, and then buy the gear according to it.

 

And always enjoy taking pictures...

[steven_p]

The D80 and a 18-55 kit lens (nikon re-certified) can be had for around $750, US. This little cheapie lens can produce very good results, and a few sources say it outshines the 18-70/18-135.

 

I have the 60/2.8 micro left over from my 35mm stuff, and you can produce excellent close-ups. In my opinion, save the VR dollars and buy a decent tripod that can mount the center column sideways.

 

I believe in starting out small (frugal) and building your kit from there. The D80 is the lowest cost nikon that allows you to use older AF glass without loss of features. Good luck.

[spritestress]

Melinda,

 

Owning SLR camera equipment is about deciding on a brand and making a long term investment in that brand's lenses. In that regard Nikon and Canon go head to head with equivalent lens, all equivalently priced (not by accident I don't think). Five years from now, the DSLR camera bodies will have evolved amazingly. However, most of the lenses will likely continue to have value and usability. With that in mind, spend as much as your wallet can handle on the fastest lenses you can afford. Eventually your collection of lenses will be valued at a multiple of your investment in a camera body.

 

If you cannot afford the F2.8 lenses that start at $1,000.00 and up each, try something like the 24-120mm VR (model 2145) as a first lens.

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2145/AF-S%20VR%20Zoom-NIKKOR%2024-120mm%20f/3.5-5.6G%20IF-ED.html

 

It is about $600.00. It provides many features except for long telephoto. It may be a good starter lens. At some point in the future when you can afford it, the 70-200 F2.8 VR is the heart and soul of the Nikon lens family (model 2139).

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2139/AF-S%20VR%20Zoom-NIKKOR%2070-200mm%20f/2.8G%20IF-ED.html

 

For portraits, the 85mm f1.5D IF (internal focus) (model 1933) is about as sharp as imaginable.

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1933/AF%20NIKKOR%2085mm%20f/1.4D%20IF.html

 

If you buy great lenses as you learn, as you trade up for a more advance body that produces sharper images, you will be able to stay with your lens investment. Please also learn to shoot using RAW file format, and invest in Adobe Lightroom software.

[summitar]

When I bought my new D70 in 2004, getting the 18-70 kit lens only cost a $100 more. It is a very good lens, and they seem to be selling for about $300 now. Definately get the kit lens. Another lens that you might consider adding to the kit lens is the 50mm f1.8 autofocus Nikon lens, which I consider to be one of the best bargains in all lensdom.