what lens to get next?

[kylebybee]

<p>Ok so I've got some money coming in soon, and I want to add to my lens collection. Currently I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Tamron 70-300 VC the newer one, and Nikon 35 f/1.8 DX and Tokina 11-16. What do y'all recommend? Thinking about a 50mm prime, 85mm prime or 100mm or so macro. The amount coming in is around $900.00. My camera is a D7000.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>85/1.8G.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>What sorts of stuff you normally shoot ? Sports, architecture, macro, landscape, portraits, etc ? Otherwise even a inexpensive lens (like 50mm/1.8 D) could be a waste if not used.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What's the most important thing you photograph?</p>

[SCL]

<p>Are you just collecting lenses or are you shooting with them? You have the ranges of 11-300mm pretty well covered. So what are you shooting which your present lenses aren't sufficient for? Once you determine this, you can then narrow down the choices available to you. I just hate to see people throwing money at equipment which may be irrelevant or not really used, so give it some thought before parting with your hard earned money.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>A 60mm Micro Nikkor would give you many new opportunities.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I certainly agree with the 35 DX 2.8 and the 85mm. 2-8. I own both and love them.</p>

<p>For the 50mm. prime let me suggest the 50mm. 1.4 D. It is an incredible lens at a great price. I use it more than any other lens.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I would suggest that you put that $900 in the bank (or maybe buy some S&P 500 index mutual fund). I wouldn't buy any additional lens until you realize that what you currently have is preventing you from getting good images in a particular area, and I'll get a lens to plug that hole.</p>

<p>There doesn't seem to be any known hole at this point.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have to agree with Shun. He has far more common sense than most of us.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>As I use to say, there is always a chance to spend money... a new lens, flash, tripod... bike, HiFi, surfboard... etc., etc., etc. (and I`m not including "real" needs like health or kid`s education expenses :)<br />So I`m with Shun, too; keep the money for the occasion you really feel you need something specific. Other than this, all is useless NAS. Yeah, free money burns, I know that feeling... :/</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>I shoot mostly out door stuff, landscapes, old houses, barns, flowers, old rusty cars, some people, just anything that comes our way when we set out. My wife and I drive all over our state and the surrounding states to see what we find. So in sounds like maybe I need to find a particular subject matter/style and then see what I need if anything. Thanks for keeping me in check.</p>

 

[robert_stig]

No less than the new 400 2.8. ;)

 

That 85 1.8 g should be on sale by itself at 100 bucks off

For flowers (with tube or closeup filter) and people it will be great. Just be aware it will be a little long.

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, there is a lens that call my attention... although I have no intention of buying it (too much lenses to use!). It`s the Sigma 150 Apo Macro with tripod feet (I think Andrew G. has one of these). Another, the one I`d love to taste on my F3 (MF), the Zeiss 50/2 Makro-Planar.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>Based on what you shoot, I would seriously consider a good sturdy tripod. That can cost $500 - $1,000. Also look at getting a remote trigger with that.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Think of cameras as a SYSTEM. Instead of just buying lenses willy-nilly (if you KNEW you needed one, you wouldn't be asking,) think of what the weakest link is you have. I separate photo gear into these segments: lenses, camera, lighting system, tripod/head, software. Any more, I've been coming to the conclusion that money is BEST spent on travel to interesting places. My cliche' here is I'd rather have a $100 point & shoot and a ticket to Iceland than a D4 but no money to go anywhere. I'll get more interesting photos with the p&s.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What Shun said. Your kit covers the basics very well; anything you add from here is to extend your creative options. So essentially specialty lenses - those you buy for a specific characteristic (i.e. large aperture, extreme reach, very specific rendering qualities and so on). The advantages of those is: once you know you want something like that, you usually know what to look for (budget becomes much more of an issue).<br>

Kent's point on travelling is also a good one, though I should say I get the best photos in places I studied well and know well. I rarely get the really good photos as a tourist seeing a place for the first time (and the gear indeed doesn't matter at all at that point. Still, using the money for gasoline in the tank and a night in a hotel to escape for a weekend gives me nicer photos and more memorable weekend than yet another lens.</p>

<p>As for the portrait lens suggestion of 50mm or 85mm - there is a lot of personal preference in that. Some people find 85mm too long on APS-C, some find 50mm too short. If you'd contemplate any of these options, I would first try extensively with the zooms you already own to understand which focal length works for you.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>To further back what Shun et al. said. If you have to ask what to get next, you don't really <em>need</em> another lens.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

My advice is similar but different from Shun's. Save or invest 66-80% of the cash and then figure out what what would be

the most satisfying way to spend the remainder. That way you'll both increase your net worth and feel like you are treating

yourself as well. Taking this strategy will satisfy both parts of your psyche.

[rick_m.]

<p>Another vote for Shun. It doesn't sound like you need anything at this point. </p>

[purplealien]

<p>If I had your set up, I'd spend it on lighting or travel.</p>