What's the next step?!

[ali_tehrani6]

<p>Hey everyone!<br>

I'm kinda new to photography, been shooting for 6month and tried couple of techniques like long expo, timelaps, etc.<br>

I have a nikon D80 and a 55-200 sigma lens wich is slow and is not the best! So I was looking for a wide angle lens and get confused. Obviously, I would need a better camera someday. So should I first get a new camera (not sure to get canon or nikon) or should I just get a wide lens for now (then I would be forced to continue with nikon).<br>

thanks for helping me out<br>

cheers,</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you've started on Nikon, and been shooting with it for the last half year, you're probably already "<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/imprinting">imprinted</a>" on Nikon, not that it matters, unless for some reason you want to change systems before you're invested in the operating system in terms of lenses, etc.<br>

Look, frankly, the D80 has sufficient megapixels and image quality to produce results that you will never have to apologize for. <br>

Albeit that tests of lenses don't turn out exactly the same on different platforms, the Canon mount Sigma 55-200 lens on <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/323-sigma-af-55-200mm-f4-56-dc-lab-test-report--review?start=1">Photozone.de</a> is probably comparable:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma AF 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC is a budget lens and it shows in some aspects such as small max. aperture combined with a limited zoom range and some mechanical shortcomings (rotating front element and coupled focus ring). <em>Nonetheless the lens is also capable to deliver quite impressive resolution results. So if you can live with its shortcomings and you just can't spend more for a faster or longer tele zoom the Sigma is a viable option</em>. [emphasis, JDMvW]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main thing is not the equipment, but your own mastery of the technology you have. I vote that your GAS (="gear acquisition syndrome") be satisfied by getting an APS-C lens in the 18-55mm range. <br>

A kit lens version in that range will not cost so much that you are completely committed to Nikon, but, in any case, Nikon or Canon doesn't make much difference any way. Although I am now committed to Canon myself in digital, I shot only film Nikon for more than 30 years before that. My more kindly critics seem to admit that it didn't ruin me.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously, I would need a better camera someday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not know what is obvious about that. No doubt that things have moved on since the D80 was launched, but as long as the camera isn't limiting your options, there is actually little reason to replace it.<br>

As JDM wrote, the main thing is mastering what you have, not the gear itself. With just 6 months of experience, to be honest, the limits of what you can do are not going to be your camera, or lens(es). Adding a wide angle lens - if you do not have one - instead does make some sense, since that gives you new potential creative options, more than you have today. But it only makes sense if you frequently feel your current lenses cannot get wide enough. If you don't feel that is missing, getting a wide angle lens will also be a waste of money.<br>

So instead of thinking what you could buy, think first about you cannot do and want to do. So first define what the problem is (if any!) and then see what solution is best. Else, you end up with a lot of gear you never use.</p>

[ali_tehrani6]

<p>Thank you very much for your quick and complete responses. I just said I need to change it someday because I look forward to continuing photography and this camera is pretty old. So, for now I would focus on lenses and I think I have to choose nikon over canon at this point. I mentioned a wide angle lens because I had hard time taking pictures indoor and low light conditions (I think my lens is kinda slow) Also I'm interested in star trail and night sky photography. So do you guys have any recommendation for 18-55mm lense? Do you recommend getting a second-hand lens? <br>

Thank you very much :)</p>

[steven_clark]

<p>I'll add a counter: ultrawide lenses are so different in perspective you'll have no idea if you need them or not. Maybe rent one to try out?</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Why not start with a standard 18-55 mm kit lens, in general these are so inexpensive that you don't heve to look for 2nd hand ones. Perhaps add a 30 or 35 mm later, as a "normal/standard" lens. <br>

Star trails: wide angle, 20 mm (full frame) or 14 mm (APS-C) and wider. fast (f/2.8) lenses and a sturdy tripod. Plus a timer remote.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>Nikon 18-55 or 18-70. I have the 18-70 from my D70.<br>

If the 55-200 Sigma is your only lens, then you almost definitely need a shorter lens. That is unless the ONLY thing that you shoot is stuff that needs a telephoto.<br>

<br />As others have said, "Obviously, I would need a better camera someday." is not a valid statement. It is driven by the camera manufacturers marketing, and GAS (Gear Aquisition Syndrome).</p>

<p>I would still be using my old Nikon D70S from 2004, if it had not died on me. It did everything that I wanted of it. When I shoot 35mm film, I use my F2 from 1972. So having OLD gear does not automatically mean that you NEED new gear.</p>

<p>I will echo my statement to people about computers and software. If your current item is not restricting you, or if there isn't something in the new version that will give you a competitive advantage, then do NOT upgrade. If the upgrade gives you no "real" usable benefit, then you are spending $$$$ for no real gain. Companies want you to upgrade, cuz they get $$$$ from you each time you upgrade, needed or not.</p>

<p>How do you know this. You have to READ and STUDY the camera's instruction manual and maybe 3rd party books, and learn to get the most out of the camera. Some people have wanted to upgrade (computer, software, camera, etc.) to do a function, not realizing that they already have that function. They just did not do the research to learn HOW to use it.</p>

<p>If you want to switch to Cannon, do it now, while your investment in Nikon gear is minimal. But that is a completely separate discussion.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Sorry about cutting a corner, but I noticed that kit zooms in the 18-55mm range are <em>a lot</em> cheaper inside a kit than bought on their own together with a camera bought "body only". For example: 18-55mm VR 225Euro, D3300 <em>kit </em>425 Euro D3300 body 319 Euro.<br>

So I recommend having 2 camera bodies and different lenses on them. Grabbing the other camera is faster and less annoying than switching lenses. If one breaks you can shoot on and if a memory card gets corrupted only half your pictures are lost.<br>

Second hand lenses: It really depends on the seller. If nice non-photographers offer you a DSLR kit with way less than 30K clicks on the shutter, you <em>can</em> be lucky and get a decent lens. If (semi-)professionals have backup gear, they will most likely sell the questionable copy and keep the better one. If you buy from a dealer: Do it when you have the time to test your lens during it's return period.<br>

Make up your mind what you'd like to go for. Kit lens? Or living with a gap and a WA zoom like maybe a 12-24mm?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>For the best part of a decade in digital I didn't have a wide angle lens just a 35mm equivalent ... BUT and a hobby horse of mine :-) ....I had a oood editor which enabled me to stitch together between two and near twenty frames to get the wide view when I wanted it ... pretty rarely these days. I used a stitch program in the early days but since it gives me more freedom I stitch manually these days. The key is learning what you can do with an editor.</p>

<p>Another of my hobby horses is that a key part of photography is selection rather than trying to 'get everything in' Though I did buy a bug eye just for fun ... 7mm for my m4/3 camera though it rarely gets used either since my 14-140 zoom stays on the camera all the time.</p>

<p>An editor can also help with the slowness of your lens by easilly up to two stops ... that matches the fastest high price lenses :-)</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>The age of a camera is not a determining factor in whether you need a new camera or not. As others have said, if your current camera does what you require, then you're fine. I still frequently use a camera my dad bought in the early 1960s - works fine. A camera is just a tool. Rather than shopping for cameras, shop for workshops. The most useful piece of equipment a photographer has is their brain.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you do not have any 18-55 or similar lens, then yes, that's the first step.<br>

Consider the Nikon 18-105VR - it can often be found second hand at very nice prices, and optically it's a nice step over the 18-55 lenses, plus VR sure will help.</p>