What prime lenses worth getting for D5000?

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>"As for the topic, I wonder what the reasoning is behind all of the D5000 sentiment on here. </em><br>

<em>I just don't understand all the hate towards the D5000."</em></p>

<p>Hate towards the d5000? i think you are misreading what people are saying. it's not about apathy for low-end bodies or perceived snobbiness,it's the fact that <strong>the d5000 doesnt have an in-camera motor and thus will not autofocus with lenses which dont have a focus motor.</strong> i'm not sure how that translates as hate. i've personally recommended the d5000+35/1.8 combo to folks who dont need more advanced cameras and/or a multitude of specialty lenses for their shooting styles, and would do so again. but in this case, the OP was looking for primes which will work well with his camera and had specific requirements which ruled out all but a few of those which do actually work with the d5000.</p>

<p>luc, if you have a problem with nikon's pricing structure, perhaps you should rant at them, not p-netters. we're only trying to help. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Luc,</p>

<p>No hate.</p>

<p>But...</p>

<p>Too often people think that if they buy something like the D5000 it can be a serious camera and use serious accessories and lenses down the road. Then they discover that they can't use some of the lenses they want because of one limitation, that they can't use wireless CLS flash because of another... on this forum, I'm hopeful that somebody who reads this post who's thinking about a D5000 will get direction.</p>

<p>It can take AMAZING photos.</p>

<p>It's a great soccer mom (or Dad) camera. It's great as a more capable alternative to the D3000.</p>

<p>It's less capable as a serious camera for somebody who's going to do studio photography, portraiture, and want to use a wide variety of lenses and such. imho, it totally fails as a "poor man's D90". Years ago, the D50 was a "budget D70" and it succeeded in that to a large degree because of that screwdrive motor. The D5000, lacking that motor, fails as a "Budget D90".</p>

<p>I'm glad I read posts like this before I bought a D5000, because I did I actually got a D90 instead and am very much more satisfied.</p>

[976photo]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>Thanks, I know about the<strong> D5000 not having an internal auto focus motor</strong>. And I'm aware of the topic that the OP is concerned with. HOWEVER, rather than answering the OP's question, as he already owns a D5000, he gets such useful advice like "you should have bought a D90" (I know it wasn't you that said that, I'm just pointing out as an example) That does not answer his question or helps him in any way, other than to slam the camera he currently owns.</p>

<p>He already stated that he could not afford the D90. I bought a D5000 for the same reason, I could not afford at the time a D90, and the D5000 was as close to the D90 as I could get with what I could afford to spend.</p>

<p>And this seems to be a site-wide issue, not limited to this post. I've noticed numerous times over the past couple of months that it seems like anytime the D5000 is mentioned in a post the automatic response is "Buy a D90, it's only $200 more for the body." My grip is not with Nikon's pricing, but of the assumption that people have an extra $400 - $500 to spend, because as I stated, the "extra $200" will get you a D90 body, but you still need to buy a lens.</p>

<p>Granted, if they have the money and can spend it, great. But personally I didn't have the extra $500 to get the D90 AND a lens, because I don't know about you guys, but just a camera body by itself does me no good.</p>

<p>It just seems, from what I've seen posted, that the general consensus is to "stay away from the D5000 at all costs." Maybe that's not true, but it's the vibe that I get. Maybe it's because I never hear anyone say what the D5000 CAN do. All I ever seem to hear is what it can't do, and that's just not always helpful to the OP's situation.</p>

[976photo]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p>Thanks, I understand your point... I really do. And if I could have afforded the D90, I would have gotten one, I researched heavily before I bought. I am seeking to be a professional, and I don't expect the D5000 to be my main camera 10 years from now, but I also never expected to own just one camera. I understand that down the road, as a professional, I will need to have at least one other camera if for no other reason than to have a backup incase something happens to one.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I have yet to need any of the features that the famous D90 can do and the D5000 can't. No auto-focus motor? I have two lenses right now, I'll probably get one more before I feel like I need to seriously upgrade my equipment. It's a non-issue. No PC port? I have two studio strobe lights that I fire using a wireless hot-shoe transmitter. Not an issue. Wireless CLS flash? Haven't had a need to use that, and there are workarounds to that. It's not a must have IMO. I'm sure it's a great tool to use, but...</p>

<p>I hate to go on about this, I really didn't mean to highjack the thread. Like I said, I fully understand the advantages of the D90, but I feel the D5000 gets a bad rap for some reason.</p>

<p>Sorry for veering off the subject of the OP.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Eric A. and Peter H. are not definitely camera snobs, Luc. They are helpful and, if anything, the antithesis of gear snobs in this gear oriented nikon forum. </p>

[976photo]

<p>Leslie - Didn't say they were. I even made it a point to say that I know it wasn't Eric who had said the quote I was pointing out. I was simply having a very detailed discussion with the two of them, trying to explain my views a little more clearly.</p>

<p>I have no issues with either of them or with anything they said. I understand the points they both made, and I hope that I was able to explain my points clearly enough.</p>

<p>I don't really want to carry this particular topic on any longer here, I feel like I've taken over the thread and I did not intend to do that. If anyone feels like continuing the discussion, you're welcome to start a new thread about it and I'll be happy to chime in - obviously I'm not shy about speaking my mind :)</p>

<p>Otherwise, I've said my piece and hope I've made my points and I'll leave it at that.</p>

<p>So back to the OP, Joe did you finally get the answer you were looking for?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>luc, i'm glad you brought your concerns up. it opens up areas of discussion, and really, that's the reason we're all here. if you'll permit me to address some specific points you raised...</p>

<p><em>Thanks, I know about the<strong> D5000 not having an internal auto focus motor</strong>. And I'm aware of the topic that the OP is concerned with. HOWEVER, rather than answering the OP's question, as he already owns a D5000, he gets such useful advice like "you should have bought a D90"...That does not answer his question or helps him in any way, other than to slam the camera he currently owns.</em></p>

<p><em> </em>i don't really see this as a slam, seeing as it came from Shun. i can't speak for him, but i think he weighs the OP's questions very fairly based on an objective reading of the situational context, and almost always delivers advice which is spot-on. i think this does help the OP, because he has a specific problem: he wants primes which will work with his d5000. really, this has more to do with the d5000's limitations as a lower-end body and the availability of primes with focus motors more than anything. Shun is just stating a reasonable conclusion based on extensive knowledge of what is and isnt out there. if he was slamming the d5000, he might have said it sucks, it's no good, and it makes you have ugly children. but he said nothing of the sort. in actuality, he pointed out that the d5000 isnt the best body for what the OP wants to do--use fast primes for bokeh effects which aren't possible with most P&S cameras. So it does answer his question--it's just not, perhaps, the answer he was looking for.</p>

<p><em>"He already stated that he could not <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00WfnB?start=20" target="_blank">afford</a> the D90. I bought a D5000 for the same reason, I could not afford at the time a D90, and the D5000 was as close to the D90 as I could get with what I could afford to spend."</em></p>

<p>OK, but the OP also said he was considering at some point in the future purchasing fixed-focal length lenses which cost upwards of $1,000, as well as other lenses which approach or exceed the cost of his camera. i'm not sure why you chose to take this personally. IMO, i feel the d5000 is a great camera at that price point. it has the same sensor and low-light ability as the d90 and d300. for that reason, for what i shoot, i'd almost rather have it as a second body over my d80--except for the fact that a bunch of my lenses which AF on the d80 wouldnt AF on that (like the tokina 12-24, the nikon 50/1.8, the tamron 17-50*, the tamron 28-75*, etc. --note: i have the older, non-BiM, versions of the tamron twins).</p>

<p>sooooo, if you have a d5000, you have to be prepared to live with its limitations and select lenses accordingly. that's not a slam, just the truth.</p>

<p><em>" I've noticed numerous times over the past couple of months that it seems like anytime the D5000 is mentioned in a post the automatic response is "Buy a D90, it's only $200 more for the body." My grip is not with Nikon's pricing, but of the assumption that people have an extra $400 - $500 to spend, because as I stated, the "extra $200" will get you a D90 body, but you still need to buy a lens."</em></p>

<p>often times, Luc, these are expert opinions from folks who have been there and done that. take it with a grain of salt if you must, but i'd rather spend an extra $200 on a body and save money down the line by being able to use a wider complement of lenses (including older/used ones) than be forced to choose from a limited selection of AF-S glass. FWIW, i saw pretty much the same comments three years ago about the d40 vs. the d80. it's really about Nikon's price points and market strategy (and the reality of lens selection) than any inherent abhorrence of low-end bodies. the d5000 is arguably the best low-end body nikon has ever produced, if that makes you feel any better (the d40's 1/500 flash sync notwithstanding).</p>

<p><em>Granted, if they have the money and can spend it, great. But personally I didn't have the extra $500 to get the D90 AND a lens, because I don't know about you guys, but just a camera body by itself does me no good.</em></p>

<p>thanks for sharing, but this comment is neither here nor there. you can't afford it, don't buy it. it's that simple.</p>

<p><em>"It just seems, from what I've seen posted, that the general consensus is to "stay away from the D5000 at all costs." Maybe that's not true, but it's the vibe that I get. Maybe it's because I never hear anyone say what the D5000 CAN do. All I ever seem to hear is what it can't do, and that's just not always helpful to the OP's situation."</em></p>

<p>Luc, i have to disagree here. for one, you are reading stuff that wasn't even said into the discussion. secondly, the d5000 is a low-end body, which has less features than bodies which cost more. that's just a fact. i don't think this is the fault of anyone on P-net. there's plenty of praise out there for the d5000, but if you are expecting someone to get all rah-rah about nonexistent features, you are barking up the wrong tree. maybe you should start a d5000 support group if you feel that strongly about it. i, for one, would certainly consider the d5000 as a lightweight, compact option--but not as an alternative to a pro or even prosumer DSLR.</p>

<p>in the OP's situation, he wants to use the d5000 with fast primes, which is one of the areas where its limitations come into play. you can call an apple an orange if you like, but at the end of the day, guess what? it's still an apple. it you bite it, it will taste like an apple, and if you slice it, it will slice like an apple. no matter what you do with it, you will not be able to make orange juice with an apple. you will, however, be able to make apple juice or applesauce. and for that, you should be happy.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Luc,</p>

<p>Inevitably even the least "gear snob" camera person (that's me by the way) who is serious will want more lenses. Many of these are screwdrive lenses. When I first bought a DSLR for myself (I had used the D1 since it first came out and the Kodak Full-frame DSLR in my former job) I could BARELY afford the D50, so that's what I got. I did NOT miss some of the things I really wanted but didn't get because I had that screwdrive motor and could buy any AF lens I wanted to. I now have two screwdrive lenses. Thought it would be more, might eventually, but for now, just two.</p>

<p>A serious photographer who buys the D5000 limits himself. Unable to buy less expensive screwdrive versions of certain lenses, he has to either pony up more money for the AF-S versions (if they even exist... some don't, like the 85, 105, and 135 options) or settle for less "serious" lenses. They saved money in the short term, but will end up waiting a long time or spending a LOT more in the long term for the lenses that they often knew they wanted in the first place. They were "serious" and hampered themselves in a way I'm trying to keep future photographers from doing by stating that.</p>

<p>So, you seem to hear people saying the D5000 should be avoided? I agree. I hear it, too, and I'll say it directly. If you are a serious photographer, and think you will want to buy an array of good lenses, especially primes, avoid the D5000 altogether. Without a screwdrive motor (forget the other feature differences, you can live with or work around all of them most likely), it is not a "serious" camera. I don't see where Nikon ever meant it to be.</p>

<p>Can you and should you take great photos with a D5000? No doubt. If you already have one, enjoy it, work within its limitations, learn great photography. It's a great camera, just not a "serious" or even "semi-pro" one under any circumstances. (imho, ymmv, yada yada yada...)</p>

[joe_bloggs12]

<p>Gah...</p>

<p>It sounds like I started a thread titled "what screwdrive lenses to get for the D5000" o.O</p>

<p>I have to say, the D5000 purchase was the furthest thing from well-reasoned. (not that I didn't research beforehand, but the moment of purchase was pure impulse.) Perhaps I deserve to be told that I should have got the D90. Nevertheless, I don't know if I could have ponied up the money at the time.</p>

<p>I'm finding that I don't really seem to need lenses much longer than the 35mm for my "portraits", perhaps because I take photos of family members exclusively and a close vantage point gives intimacy to the image. I hear many Japanese photogs use a 50mm on FX for portraits anyway, and I live in Hong Kong, where we're similarly pressed for space.</p>

<p>Again, can anybody chime in on the Sigma 20mm f/1.8? I'm interested in it despite it being screwdrive. If I can learn to MF quickly enough with the rangefinder function... and if the rangefinder is accurate and precise enough.</p>

<p>Other than that, I could get a zoom. Suppose I don't have much use for the 35-50mm focal length, would you prefer getting a slower wide zoom like 10-20 f/3.5 or 12-24 f/4 or a 17-50 f/2.8? Is the 17-35mm range crucial or does the UWA range open more creative possibilities?</p>

<p>As for manual focusing using the screen, I really don't see how that is possible with the stock screen on any current DSLR. Current DSLR screens are designed with AF in mind and have low scatter, AFAIK you can only see out to f/5.6 or so. IMHO that's a good thing, if you're using AF lenses: for purposes of composition, you really want to see everything in focus, then decide for yourself what you want to focus on. (at least that's what Sean Reid said when extolling the virtues of rangefinder cameras :) A low-scatter screen goes some way towards achieving that.</p>

<p>If I MF, it will definitely be with the rangefinder or Live View. I'd like to hear your experiences on these too, thanks.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>joe, a couple things:<br>

try manual-focusing with the lens you already have, the 35, before buying a lens which may or may not work to your satisfactions. Live View is probably the feature i use the least on my D300. that's because of my style of shooting, which is somewhat similar to what you said you wanted to do: low-light action. it's useful on a tripod and for macro when you need critical focus and have time. other than that, it's pretty slow.</p>

<p><em>Suppose I don't have much use for the 35-50mm focal length, would you prefer getting a slower wide zoom like 10-20 f/3.5 or 12-24 f/4 or a 17-50 f/2.8? Is the 17-35mm range crucial or does the UWA range open more creative possibilities?</em></p>

<p>well, i have both the 12-24/4 and the 17-50/2.8. i use the 17-50 way more. in fact, the 17-50 is my most-used lens. i do consider the 17-35 range essential, and as far as creative possibilities, constant 2.8 is a bigger boon for available-light shooting than constant f/4. that said, i do like my UWA, and find the 18-24 range essential for people pics with it, but it's really designed to be a landscape lens. in other words, it's best at f/8. OTOH, the 17-50 is pretty sharp in the center wide open and picks up corners nicely at f/8 or f/9. so if i were you, i'd get the 17-50 first before plunking down $$ on an UWA, especially because it's more suited to the type of photography you said you were interested in at the beginning of the thread.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Luc, nobody hates the D5000 here. The whole problem here was the OP's original question: he bought the D5000 because he couldn't afford the D90; that is all fine and totally understandable. But somehow he insisted to use "prime" and there were all those suggestions of expensive, $1000 85mm/f1.4 AF-S equivalent lenses to work around the AF limitations on the D5000. That was why the whole discussion did not make much sense.</p>

<p>I am glad that Joe is now opening to zoom suggestions.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Yes, opening up to zooms is very wise with this camera. I'd seriously look at the 17-50 from Tamron. Make sure you get the Built-in-motor version and you might be set.</p>

[calarrick]

<p>Has anyone pointed out that the 50/1.4 is available as AF-S now. Not cheap, but not $1000+ exotic, either. Would seem to meet the OPs portrait interest.<br>

Wide is a different issue - you'll have to have a zoom, but for an ultra-wide AF-S won't likely be available (e.g. the Tokina 11-16 or 12-25 lenses). One of the kit zooms that starts at 18mm (or 16) is likely your best bet, and frankly a good bet for 'starter wide-angle' (although if you like it you'll quickly want to go wider). They aren't *that* slow at the wide end. REALLY fast wide-angle lenses will be way more costly and way more heavy/bulky than most people will want, anyway.<br>

Also, Joe, you mention sitting farther to the right and aiming a little to the left to straighten the boxes and the kid into the same plane of focus. Yep, good thinking. I'd amend that, though, to *crouching* a little to the right of where you were... get that camera a little lower to about your son's eye level and see what happens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>there's also the sigma 18-50 HSM which will AF faster than the 17-50's micromotor. the Tamron usually gets the edge in image quality but i know a few folks who shoot with the 18-50 and they seem to be happy with its performance. i've only shot a little bit with the 18-50 and never in critical situations, so i can't speak for its performance under fire, as it were. but i'm very confident using the Tammy @ 2.8, where its sharpness compares or outpaces the 50/1.8 and sigma 30/1.4.</p>

<p>as far as zooms on a d5000 goes, you want to play into a camera's strength. shooting wide open at 1.8 with a 35 gives you a little sliver of focus area to work with. at 2.8, you have much more wiggle room as far as getting a sharp shot, and of course, you have more latitude as far as composition with a zoom.</p>

<p>the part about playing into a camera's strength is this: the d5000 has the same low-light/hi-ISO ability as the d90 and d300. so anything you might lose from shooting at 2.8 as opposed to 1.8 is mitigated to a large degree by the ability to shoot at 1600 or even 3200 ISO, except in the dimmest of conditions.</p>

<p>i've found that with the 17-50/d300 combo, i rarely use the 50/1.8, and only pull out the 30/1.4 when i absolutely need 1.4. so you might even find the 35/1.8 extraneous with the 17-50 or 18-50.</p>

<p>another thing about the tammy 17-50 is it is extremely compact--comparable to the nikon 18-70 in size. it's not a big, heavy zoom by any means, but it delivers big performance. at least in my experience using it for 3 1/2 years, it has.</p><div></div>

[philip_tam]

<p>- I do agree that opening up consideration for zooms is wise. Primes are nice lenses, but I think the "prime's are awesome!" mantra is a bit overdone. Zooms have gotten a lot better since their introduction, and whereas primes give you more flexibility in terms of aperture, zooms give you flexibility with perspective. A zoom will simply broaden the range of photographs you can take.</p>

<p>- The D5000 is what you bought, and the D5000 is a fine camera. If I had a D5000, I would not look back with any regret, and with the current offerings, I would not be compelled to upgrade to anything short of a D300s. Yes, the camera doesn't autofocus AF-D, and that slashes your lens selection down... don't worry about it, Tamron and Sigma have you covered, and in general AF-S is a *good* thing. Remote flash: if you really wanted to do it, buy a remote flash commander. In some ways, it's better than the wireless flash control on the D90. So don't have any regrets... the D5000 has a similar sensor, and roughly the same high ISO performance as the D90.</p>

<p>-35mm is great for portraits, but 50-85 I think is more intimate... you get closer without getting physically closer and worrying about focus/perspective issues. I'll make a last push for the 60mm macro: 50mm lenses tend to... not be that great wide open (say from f/1.4-f/2.8), not to mention that you're dealing with thinner depths of field. Macro lenses however, tend to be pretty awesome wide open, so you're getting similar sharpness "sweet spots" with a 60mm macro and a 50mm lens. The 60mm macro also gives you something you lost when you passed on the kit lens: close focusing. The reason (I think) macro lenses tend to be poorer for portrait work is autofocusing time... the lens will hunt across a wider range to get focus. It is a consideration, but it really isn't a bad tradeoff to put a great lens in your pocket that opens up new doors.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Other than that, I could get a zoom. Suppose I don't have much use for the 35-50mm focal length, would you prefer getting a slower wide zoom like 10-20 f/3.5 or 12-24 f/4 or a 17-50 f/2.8? Is the 17-35mm range crucial or does the UWA range open more creative possibilities?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you get an ultra-wide zoom, emphasis sharpness, then zoom range, then give a passing glance at aperture. Ultra-wides are not created equal, some tend to be very soft. Given that you only cover 35mm though, you might want to consider the 10-24 or 12-24 range, which is generally useful. The Sigma 10-20 might be kinda limited....... 10 I find is simply too wide for many situations (and they vignette with Cokin P filters if you ever get into that). The meat of ultrawide landscape work I think is within 12-20... and 20-24 is a useful range that you don't have covered.</p>

<p>Aperture is nearly pointless for ultra-wides. It's hard to get good bokeh (half the point of ultrawides is to get *everything* in focus), and you will be stopping down to f/8 on nearly every lens for both depth of field and maximum sharpness.</p>

<p>That said, the Tokina 12-24mm, with the autofocus motor, if you can find it, may be the best bet. Your other choice is the Tamron 10-24... which gets mixed reviews [it's what I have though, and I admit corner softness is an issue].</p>

<p>Other than that... yeah, what everybody says about 17/18-50mm f/2.8 is great. You just have to decide which focal length you want to start working on. Intimate portraits: 50/60/85 primes. Perspective portraits and landscapes: ultrawide. General fun: 17-50.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I have a D5000 and i do not have a problem using manual prime lenses. Indeed, i can focus just as quick, and in low light situations quicker. Technology is very helpful; however, it has its limitations. <br>

<br>

It is very nice lightweight, take anywhere little cam, which can easily hold its own against the bigger beasts. </p>

<div></div>

[joe_bloggs12]

<p>Allen,<br>

Great to hear that you're MFing well on the D5000. Care to share how you're doing it? Rangefinder indicator? Aftermarket focusing screen? And does it work with lenses with no electronic contacts?</p>

[josh_story1]

<p>Got some input on this one, just my $.02. I have the D90, upgraded from a D40, and have regular access to a D300.....and the D5000....its a great camera. Get the Tokina 12-24 II, I hardly ever take it off my camera. The best choice after I tried the Tamron and Sigma wide angles out for a week each on my 90. Tokina won hands down. Build quality as good as Nikon, half the price, good for portraits (allows some creativity with them also if wanna go that route due to the perspective options) perfect for landscapes. I also still own the 50mm 1.8, and sad to say, I find its only good [on DX] for portraits/low light "action" shots most of the time. Focal length is too short or too far it seems, which kllls me cuz I love the IQ it delivers, when its possible to step back enough that it fits into the landscape/scenery realm. I really wish it was more versatile... cant seem to justify the 35mm 1.8 AFS cuz of the Tokina, its F4 is enough to get the job done 90% of the time.... works great in my house, just keep a couple lights on when you have your camera in hand lol !! after all the mid range zooms/primes i've had (24mm, 35mm AFD, 50 f1.4, 50 AFS, 85mm, 200mm, 300mm, 18-200, 18-55, 17-55, 55-200, 20-35 f2.8, 24-120mm), I settled on the 28-70, BUT, when I got the 80-200 2.8 (i got the AFD, but you could go to AFS for a couple hundred more) I hardly ever touch the 28-70 anymore. <br>

If i would have known in the beginning of my progression in this hobby that I would wind up switching back and forth between the Tokina 12-24 and the Nikon 80-200AFD nearly exclusively, with my other 2 lenses collecting dust in my cabinet, I could have saved a boat load of dollars!! Just need a micro now......... :-)</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>I have a D60, Joe, that I use manual focus lenses with. I have an aftermarket Katzeye screen installed. It makes all the difference in the world. You get a nice, split-image to work with. I use the rangefinder as well, but the screen is faster.</p>

<p>You can use lenses with no electrical contacts, but of course you lose metering.</p>

[wmervine]

<p>I may be resurrecting an older thread, but after more hands on experience having to use manual focus on my D5000, I'm going to see if I can hire a AF lens and spend a day or 2 seeing how viable living without autofocus can be. After all, not a bad skill to try and improve.</p>

[emily_t2]

<p>I'm not sure about proper forum etiquette, but I was hoping I could jump in here and ask another question about lenses for a nikon D5000. Everyone who has contributed responses sounds rather competent and I am only about a year into DSLR photography. For the most part, I can decipher what everyone is saying and I know what most of the "letters" and "numbers" mean when people talk about lenses and cameras, but a lot of it is still jibberish. That being said, I do have a natural eye for photography and have already had some photos recognized by websites and contests including one for Lonely Planet...so while I have the creativity down, I am hoping that the technological part of my brain will start grasping it all. Right now I am just using the 18-55 and 55-200mm kit lenses with my D5000. I am ready to upgrade and have a budget of about $1000. I am a traveler who heads overseas each winter and will be going back to India in November (a travel photographer's paradise) and I want to have some new lenses, or at least one new lens in tow. I found on the last trip that I really enjoy taking portraits and people shots more than landscape, but I don't want to rule out landscape shots as I will be back in Nepal for some trekking, which means pictures of mountains, valleys, etc. So, what are some of your suggestions for lenses??? Also, lens weight is a little bit of a factor as I travel for 6 months and try to pack lightly! Thanks...</p>

[wmervine]

<p>Emily, could you give us a bit more info on what focal lengths you normally shoot with? Do you use the 18-55 or the 55-200 more? And what aspects would you like the new lens to improve on? Better low light? Or just looking for better performance?</p>