Third Lens for Nikon D5000 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Third Lens for Nikon D5000

(16 posts) (13 voices)

Tags:

skylightsky

new member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 1
offline

Hello,

Recently purchased a D5000 and the 70-300mm lens. I will be given a Macro lens for extreme close up, so now I am wondering what should be my next lens purchase.

My favorite subject to shoot is my new grandbaby, with shooting being indoors. Was curious about purchasing 50mm f/1.4G AF-S or something similar to the 20mm f/2.8D AF Lens, but d5000 compatible.

Portrait lens nice, landscape lens attractive, unsure what to do next.

Sort of afraid of fixed lens, but want to increase my skill...

suggestions... and the answers can be broader than the question here... But my budget doesn't allow for the $1,600 dream lenses but if somebody wants to praise them during the answer, please do so. I can always rent one of them, but my budget for purchase is under $1000 US dollars.

Thanks.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

I would def recommend the 35 1.8G, lots of discussions on it right now and Jonnyapple provided some niece examples. . .

I'm renting a D5k right now and it's snappy and light with the 35 1.8!

$199 right now from adorama:
http://www.adorama.com/NK3518U.html?searchinfo=nikon+35+1.8

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

I would get something wider, Sigma 10-20 or Nikon 12-24 will make a nice setup, primes are generally not worth the money for an average amateur these days.
Primes will only increase your walking skills.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Welcome to the forum skylightsky

I would recommend the 16-85mm. That lens will give you a very large range. If you want something for low light indoor stuff I'd recommend the 50mm. The 35mm is a good lens but not a portrait lens. It tends to distort people when you shoot up close. (Big noses small head, etc.). You don't want to be right up close when photographing your grandchild. The 35mm is more for general wide shots.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

i guess the real quesiton is what's your budget?

16-85 is about $500-600
50mm 1.4G is about $450
Sigma 10-20 is about $649

35 1.8G is the cheapest and arguably sharpest option, at $199. . .

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Yeah, welcome, skylightsky. Here's that 35 1.8 thread if you're interested: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1146

The 16-85 is a great choice for your budget. Or maybe the 16-85 and the 35 1.8. f/1.8 is really nice for indoors shots even if it means moving to compose.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jessi

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 114
offline

Johnny - do you have any examples of the distortion in portraits that Niko mentioned? How bad is it really? I searched for some online and didn't really find any. Unless you just can tell if you don't know the subjects? I am running into trouble with my 50mm due to the fact that my house has small rooms. I would like something wider but not if everyone is going to look like they have big goofy noses ;)

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I was going to suggest a Lomographic Lens, the problem is that I and certain other NR (mostly Niko) members are not sure what the actual DX mm would be for each lens they have, but then again you might not be into pictures that are Soft, problems reproducing the proper colors and not to mention lack of anything automatic.
You should properly start out with a 35mm F1.8, it is great to learn composure skills with primes, and for wide angle get a zoom, even just a basic 18-55 VR lens is not bad, except for the front turning when focusing, maybe the 18-105 or 16-85 they are both great

Pete

BTW I am going to get one of them LOMO's, if Niko or Admin can get back with more info on them

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Jessi said:
Johnny - do you have any examples of the distortion in portraits that Niko mentioned? How bad is it really? I searched for some online and didn't really find any. Unless you just can tell if you don't know the subjects? I am running into trouble with my 50mm due to the fact that my house has small rooms. I would like something wider but not if everyone is going to look like they have big goofy noses ;)

It's not the lens itself that causes it, Jessi. If you're really close to someone's face the features that are close will have a bigger angular size, so they'll fill more of the frame than the features which are further from the lens. So the tradeoff is that with wider angles you can't get as tight a crop without distorting features. I actually don't mind it for most portraits (especially for kids pictures—it's kind of like a Norman Rockwell effect) because it's a natural distortion, not an optical one, meaning that even your eye will see that distortion, too, if you get close enough to someone's face. Maybe it's easier for our brains to correct for it(?), but I don't think it's distracting at 35mm for even a head and shoulders kind of crop.
(Some people actually take it to extremes and use it as an effect.)

Some samples:
35mm #1
50mm #1
These two are of the same kid, similar pose, and almost the same size (if anything, these exaggerate the differences because the 35 shot is a bit tighter than the 50)

35mm #2
the 35 is actually pretty personal. I feel like this guy might be getting ready to jump down the stairs into my arms in a few seconds.
50mm #2
This composition might not have worked with the 35. It's all a matter of opinion, anyway. Some would also say the 50mm is too short for this shot.

edit: PS, the first and last samples in the 35 1.8 thread mentioned above are portraits, too.

Posted 3 years ago #
mikeo21

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 100
offline

I love the 35 1.8 w/ my d5000. Its a very light and fun combination. i can say I've learned a lot from this setup.

However, I have often found myself wishing it was a little more 'zoomed in'. 35 on the d5k is about a 52mm 35mm eqiuvalent, so it is supposed to be an all purpose focal length rather than a portrait one.

check out flickr.com/moregan17
Theres a few portrait shots with the 35 1.8 on there.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I'd recommend the 16-85 and the 35/1.8 next. With a DX equivalent focal length of 52.5mm, I don't find the 35 particularly wide, but I also would not recommend it as a portrait lens, unless you're shoot environmental portraits.

Posted 3 years ago #
PatMann

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 37
offline

If you have a 70-300 and are getting a macro (which one?) you have the medium tele to long tele range covered. What you don't have is a "normal" lens (35mm or thereabouts with DX) or a wide angle lens. 35mm is very restrictive if you're shooting a kid indoors - no context. For kid shooting, other than formal portraits (your macro might work fine for that) I think you're better off with a midrange zoom such as the 18-55 (very inexpensive) or the 16-85 VR (much more extended zoom range for general-purpose shooting, but much more expensive), shoot with flash indoors.

You'll gain 1 or 2 shutter speeds with the 35mm f/1.8 compared to the budget zooms, but I find that focal length pretty narrow for a snapshooting lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

guys- don't close ourselves in Nikon box only, for less than $1k You can go for Sigma 24-70 (LINK) or if You really wanna stick to Nikon then I'll go for 35/1.8 as N50/1.4 is rather unusable on DX for Your style of photography

Posted 3 years ago #
optimaforever

senior member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 85
offline

35/1.8 first
60/2.8 micro AFS which can be used as a portrait FF 85mm equivalent (but more versatile and you asked for macro possibility)
16-85 VR (very versatile but expensive and big) or 18-55 (very cheap but useful and small) to complement your 70-300VR
10-24 for UWA territories
if you really love great lenses 17-55, 24-70 are way heavier and sharper but also way more expensive... but you know that.

Posted 3 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

while you are at it get a 50mm f/1.8 ($40 on ebay) you will have a crop factor but it leaves the rest of your money to buy a few more lenses or a 17-55mm f/2.8 off ebay

Posted 3 years ago #
PatMann

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 37
offline

skylightsky said:
Hello,

Recently purchased a D5000 and the 70-300mm lens. I will be given a Macro lens for extreme close up, so now I am wondering what should be my next lens purchase.

My favorite subject to shoot is my new grandbaby, with shooting being indoors. Was curious about purchasing 50mm f/1.4G AF-S or something similar to the 20mm f/2.8D AF Lens, but d5000 compatible.

Portrait lens nice, landscape lens attractive, unsure what to do next.

Sort of afraid of fixed lens, but want to increase my skill...

suggestions... and the answers can be broader than the question here... But my budget doesn't allow for the $1,600 dream lenses but if somebody wants to praise them during the answer, please do so. I can always rent one of them, but my budget for purchase is under $1000 US dollars.

Thanks.

My answer would in part depend on which macro lens you are getting. The macro can also be quite useful for other things. Either the 60mm or 85mm AF-S macro lenses would make good short to medium telephoto lenses for a DX camera. The 60mm is f/2.8, which would give you a relatively fast prime lens for general-purpose use, though it's a relatively narrow field of view.

Since you say your budget is $1000, I would suggest the 10-24 zoom and either the 18-55 VR or the 35 DX to fill out the range between 24mm and your macro or telephoto zoom. The 18-55 gives you a good general-purpose snapshot lens, and the 35mm gives you a "normal" faster prime for lower-light situations. The 10-24 completes your focal length range for the full range of normal photographs, excluding only specialty telephotos for wildlife and high-speed zooms for sports and live performance.

While the 16-85 is a great general-purpose lens, and since I got it is probably on my camera as often as my 12-24, with your budget you can't afford both that lens and a wider one.

Posted 3 years ago #