Amateur Photographer looking for some advice.

[jiawei_zhang]

<p>Yeah, I've been looking around for a Nikon 60mm f/2.8 D but haevn't found one for a decent price yet. Is the new D version worth like $50 more than the non-d?</p>

[jiawei_zhang]

<p>And another question: I'm looking for an additional cheap camera because I don't like changing lenses and it tends to attract dust and crap, so would getting a D3100 on eBay be a good option? I think I can get one used for like $220, or should I get one from cameta refurb for $300? This is going to be from a separate budget and my parents are getting this for me.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jiawei, congrats on the program you wrote - that's good work to get started. Now looking at those results, it's kind of obvious (for me anyway) that 50mm is not the length you're after. 35mm might be. While I would not call the 35mm f/1.8G DX outerworldly, it is a seriously nice lens for the money. It can focus quite close, it's not a macro lens by any means but it can get close up. It seems dismissed from your list, though, in favour of macro?</p>

<p>Now, if it really is macro you want, meaning going to 1:2 or 1:1, then the 35mm will disappoint for sure. However, given the focal lengths you're using, I do have a fair share of doubts about the choice for a 60mm. It doesn't seem the focal length what you're using now, so why look specifically for those?<br>

Let's take a step back. What kind of macro work is it you're looking for? Close-up, flowers, insect, reproduction, dead or alive?<br>

The 40mm will indeed have you working very up close (so not ideal for living insects), but the wider angle of view is interesting (would I still be on DX, this lens would be on my "probably will get it sooner or later" list). Otherwise, get as long as you can afford, as said above. Tokina 100mm, Sigma 105 or Tamron 90mm are all very nice lenses. Hard to go wrong.<br>

In short, it would help to understand what macro work you do. I really think if 8% of your photos now is at 60mm, getting a 60mm prime makes no sense at all. Do not dismiss the 40mm macro off-hand, it looks a really nice lens for a good price, and it's in a range you actually do use relatively frequently today.</p>

<p>At the long end - you have up to 200mm now. Going to 300mm will still be affordable. Going beyond 300mm at a good price with good optics - it becomes a whole lot harder. Again here, consider what is really most important - getting longer, or getting faster. You cannot get both, and frankly, at your budget, getting fast lenses is already hard enough. I'd say, either make do with the 18-200VR, or sell that and get the 18-105VR and 55-300VR (if you can stretch the budget, the 70-300VR or Tamron 70-300VC).<br>

In this case, I would vote for saving up money for quite a bit longer until you can get something like a decent 2-ring AF-D 80-200 f/2.8, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or the likes.</p>

<p>Buying a second body.... I wouldn't, even if you can convince your parents to pay for it. Better to keep the money in case something more important comes along. Next to that, the 'attracting dust and crap' thing is a bit exegerrated on quite some photo sites. I shoot mostly primes and change lenses whenever I need (=often and a lot), and yet, I can get away with cleaning every now and then. A tiny spec of dust does not ruin your camera, nor your photos. It's easy to deal with it, so get over the fear of changing lenses.</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>You have a lot of lenses covering similar lenses.<br>

The 35-70/2.8D although old and often said to be limited in range is an excellent lens produced great image quality. It also works great with close-up lenses.<br>

The 18-200 is a good general purpose lens. I have never used it but know several photographers who own it and are please with it.<br>

If you are interested in macro, yes a macro lens will be a fantastic complement to your arsenal. However you should first consider what type of macro photography you like to do. For static subjects the 60/2.8 micro will be excellent but for anything that moves you should look at the 105/2.8D. You can find some in like new shape for around $400. It's a very versatile lens that will provide you with more working room for subjects like insects or plants.<br>

For night photography the 35/1.8G or 50/1.8D seem perfect if your subjects are on the move. If they are static such as night cityscapes or the like the 35-70/2.8D will cover the job just fine.</p>

[jiawei_zhang]

<p>Wouter, the reason I'm looking in to the 60mm is because it's macro. My 35-70 only does macro at 35mm so all my cucrrent "macro" shots are 35mm. I think any macro will suit me. I would get the 40mm but EVERYONE says that the shadow blocks out the light. So, I think what i'll do is get the 60mm 2.8 non-D for like $200 and that's it. I don't think the extra stop on the 35mm f/1.8 will do me much good.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>EVERYONE says that the shadow blocks out the light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly, I never read that as a specific issue for that lens. If you use pop-up or on-camera flash, yes, might happen. Otherwise...it should not be a problem. If it is, it means your lighting isn't set up right. That's not a lens issue. <br />Do take note that the working distance for the 60mm is not much more, so you'd run the exact same risk (the 40mm reaches 1:1 at 16cm, the AF-D 60mm at 22cm).</p>

<p>I'd really take a better look at the focal length you might need. Not all macro lenses are equal (differences in angle of view stay relevant also for macro), so assuming any macro will do could well be a $200 mistake.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Jiawei --</p>

<p>Glad that you are enjoying photography.</p>

<p>First, your 35-70 f/2.8 D lens is very good and unusually for a zoom has a pretty good macro in itself. </p>

<p>On a student budget, they next thing I would do is something that would let you shoot in available light. 50 f/1.8, or the new 35 f/1.8G. The 50 would be good for available light portraits, the 35 as a normal lens. </p>

<p>Also high on my list would be areal macro lens, whether AF or Manual Focus. The 200mm Micro Nikkor is pretty exotic and expensive. I suggest a 50mm or 105mm Micro Nikkor, whatever you can find and afford.</p>

[rob_caswell1]

<p>I did alot sports for a weekly newspaper and did weddings on the side.</p>

<p>For indoor HS sports like basketball, my go to lens under the basket was the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/1.8 would be a good choice as well.</p>

<p>For Volleyball, also the 85mm f/1.8 AF would be closer to what I would use.</p>

<p>I found anything under 300mm just to short for my taste when it came to football, soccer, and baseball. I needed every bit of the f/2.8 aperture in the poor lighting conditions I was shooting.</p>

<p>For outdoor sports, the 300mm f/2.8 AIS would be something to save up for in the future.... yeah it's $1000+/- but is super smooth manual focus, and oozes the wow factor in both image quality and professionalism.</p>

<p>For weddings, I got a chance to shoot the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and it was excellent.</p>

<p>All except the 300mm are well within your budget. I also have the 35-70 AF-D and love it.</p>

<p>You want go wrong getting faster glass. I would probably go for an older 50mm f/1.8 at less than $100 and/or the 35mm f/1.8 and hold off on a macro.</p>

[jiawei_zhang]

<p>So none of you recommend the 70-210 f/4 AF? Online reviews of it are stellar.</p>

[dan_south]

One idea would be to sell everything that you have now and buy a 16-85 VR and the 70-200 f/4. Maybe a fast 35 if the budget allows.