D3000 (Or Any DX Camera) beginner...need a new lens!

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

D3000 (Or Any DX Camera) beginner...need a new lens!

(43 posts) (18 voices)

Tags:

D3000
lenses

12 Next »

angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

My parents got me a D3000 for Christmas and I have been having so much fun with it! I wish I had a different model because it lacks an in-body autofocus motor and I didn't realize this.

Anyway, I am not ready to change models yet...can anyone suggest a 2nd lens to get for a beginner? I am thinking of a telephoto or macro lens, or even a wide angle.

Also, if I do buy a new one, will it be compatible with other models if I choose to upgrade the body down the line? Like if I got a d90 in a year or so.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

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

Welcome to the forum, angellisa. Do you have the 18-55 kit lens now? What's your budget and what do you plan on using the second lens for?
As to compatibility, any lens that works on the D3000 will work on an upgraded body.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Welcome to the forum Angellisa :^)

Any AF-S lens will be compatible with all present and future Nikon digital cameras. What you actually want to think about is the difference in FX (35mm full frame) or DX (APS-C sensor) compatibility. If in the future you get a full frame 35mm Nikon then all of your DX lenses will have dark corners when used at full resolution. FX lenses can be used on both types of cameras (DX or FX) with no problem but the new lenses are expensive.

If you don't mind having a future DX camera like the D90 then I would recommend a telephoto lens like the 55-200 or 70-300 VR if you already have the 18-55 kit lens. Any AF-S lens will be compatible with all present and future Nikon digital cameras. Let me also be the first to recommend the 35mm f1.8 though. I bet that will be the most recommended lens for you. Prepare to get lots of suggestions.

Posted 3 years ago #
angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

Thanks for the reply, jonny! I do have the 18-55, which is what my camera came with. I am looking for a lens mostly for outdoors and close-ups. I am so new at this so I don't know the correct terminology just yet, but I really love the look of having a nice, close-up image with blurred background.

Very good to know about the compatibility-- seems like it will be a good investment to buy a new lens even if I change bodies. No real budget-- I am going to be saving up for the best one that fits my needs.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Nikon's best macro (close-up) lens is the 105mm f2.8 without a doubt.

Posted 3 years ago #
angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

Thanks for the suggestions NikoDoby! I have so much learning to do....! I am definitely bookmarking the thread for future reference as my knowledge expands. :)

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

Anytime you've got a question just ask. Forum members around here enjoy helping each other out.

Posted 3 years ago #
angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

What about a lens like this? Any pros/cons?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-f4-5-6G-Nikkor-Black/dp/B0009HN57Y

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

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

I think Niko's recommendation is a good one—the 55-200. You posted a link to one of those, but I think it's better to get the vibration reduction (VR) on a telephoto lens like this. Here's a link to the version with VR. I think it's worth the extra money:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/

The 35 1.8 is a good one, too, but it doesn't zoom. Instead, it's got a really wide aperture (the hole where the light goes through) so that you can take pictures in situations with less light. It also blurs the background more to have a big aperture, so it might be good for what you're saying. I guess I don't know if you mean close-ups of small things with the background blurred or close-ups of people/animals with the background blurred. The 55-200 will be good for the close-ups of people.

If you want to take pictures of really small things, you should look at macro lenses like the one Niko mentioned (the 105 VR) or the new 85mm DX macro.

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

The 55-200 is definitely a good choice, and is inexpensive. For a Macro or wide angle you have to spend a bit more, but if you are willing to go 3rd party, Tamron makes a great 90mm macro lens. I would start with the 55-200 though. You can go pretty close up with the 18-55 kit lens for things like flowers, and the 55-200 will let you zoom in on people if you are taking a portrait, for instance. Both lenses will let you blur the background reasonably well, especially the long end of the 55-200. Remember, the smaller the distance between you and your subject, the more the background blurs.

Posted 3 years ago #
angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

I really appreciate all of the advice! What about getting BOTH the 35mm f1.8 and the 55-200 VR...is it silly to buy both, in addition to already having the 18-55?

Posted 3 years ago #
AaronFoto

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 135
offline

How about a 80-200 2.8 as an alternative to the 55-200? Aren't those relatively inexpensive?

If it were me, I'd get something with the biggest aperture possible for a great walk around, do everything lens. A 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8, or 35mm f2.0. The big aperture is what's going to blur the background. (BTW, lower f number means bigger aperture and lets in more light in case you're really really new.) These lenses will let you take better pictures in lower light. You'll come to find how important that is. It's my #1 priority for everything I buy.

You can also add a cheap extension tube to any of these lenses (I'm pretty sure) and have a fun macro set up.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

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

I don't think it's silly, but it depends on what you want to do. You could use the 35 f/1.8 when there's not very much light and then the 18-55 when you want to have a zoom lens. You might find yourself using the 35mm a lot. I love it, and it takes really sharp pictures. You'd notice a difference between the 18-55 zoomed to 35mm and the 35mm prime—the kit lens pictures won't look as sharp (besides that you can blur the background a lot more at f/1.8 or even f/2.8 than you can with the kit lens). I think you'd like both those lenses. It's all a question of how much money you have to spend. ;-)

ShadeofBlue, you're right about that tamron 90mm. I've used the version without built-in autofocus, anyway, and it's a great macro lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

Definitely not silly, if you can afford it and you think you would use both lenses.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the lack of in-body focus motor, unless you start wanting to buy old lenses, used.

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

AaronFoto said:
How about a 80-200 2.8 as an alternative to the 55-200? Aren't those relatively inexpensive?

If it were me, I'd get something with the biggest aperture possible for a great walk around, do everything lens. A 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8, or 35mm f2.0. The big aperture is what's going to blur the background. (BTW, lower f number means bigger aperture and lets in more light in case you're really really new.) These lenses will let you take better pictures in lower light. You'll come to find how important that is. It's my #1 priority for everything I buy.

You can also add a cheap extension tube to any of these lenses (I'm pretty sure) and have a fun macro set up.

I really doubt that someone who is just starting to use DSLRs is going to want to buy a massive 80-200 f/2.8 (which is much more expensive than a 55-200, and the AF-s version doesn't sell new anymore). I think it's much better to take things one step at a time. The 55-200 is cheap enough that it's no problem to replace down the road, if you eventually decide you want to use big, heavy professional equipment :).

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

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

AaronFoto said:
How about a 80-200 2.8 as an alternative to the 55-200? Aren't those relatively inexpensive?

They're around $700, I think.

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

jonnyapple said:
They're around $700, I think.

KEH's cheapest used 80-200 AF-s is a touch over $1000. If you look around a lot, you might find it for somewhat less, but I'm guessing $700 is a stretch.

Posted 3 years ago #
angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

ShadeofBlue said:
I really doubt that someone who is just starting to use DSLRs is going to want to buy a massive 80-200 f/2.8 (which is much more expensive than a 55-200, and the AF-s version doesn't sell new anymore). I think it's much better to take things one step at a time. The 55-200 is cheap enough that it's no problem to replace down the road, if you eventually decide you want to use big, heavy professional equipment :).

Thanks for the suggestion Aaron, but ShadeofBlue is right. I Googled the 80-200 and my first reaction was "no way!!"...much to massive for what I am looking for, at the moment at least. :) It does look like a fantastic lens though.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

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

angellisa - it's not silly to buy more than one lens, even when some of the lenses have similar fields of view, and especially when You buying zoom and prime. 35/1.8 will give You a lot of freedom (it's small and light on one hand, but very fast on the other) while zoom is more dark, although more universal.

Posted 3 years ago #
angellisa

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 7
offline

Hi again everyone, after some thought, I think I am going to go ahead and buy this one next:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

It seems fairly cheap, and definitely something that I'd get a lot of use out. I really thank you all for the suggestions! feel free to post any other advice/suggestions on here though! :)

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

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

I'll bet you'll love it, angellisa. It takes beautiful pictures and you'll be amazed at how much light you can get through it if you've only used the kit lens. I think that's a good choice.
edit: here's a discussion we had about it http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1146

Posted 3 years ago #
AaronFoto

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 135
offline

ShadeofBlue said:
I really doubt that someone who is just starting to use DSLRs is going to want to buy a massive 80-200 f/2.8 (which is much more expensive than a 55-200, and the AF-s version doesn't sell new anymore). I think it's much better to take things one step at a time. The 55-200 is cheap enough that it's no problem to replace down the road, if you eventually decide you want to use big, heavy professional equipment :).

Why buy twice? I think it's sound advice to tell someone getting into photography to just get the good version of a lens up front because they'll be mad at themselves for going cheap the first time. Since multiple people were recommending recommending the Nikon 105 it sounded like this lens may be in the budget. But as you can see, my true recommendation was for a large aperture 35 or 50. Great choice Angellisa!

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

AaronFoto said:
Why buy twice? I think it's sound advice to tell someone getting into photography to just get the good version of a lens up front because they'll be mad at themselves for going cheap the first time. Since multiple people were recommending recommending the Nikon 105 it sounded like this lens may be in the budget. But as you can see, my true recommendation was for a large aperture 35 or 50. Great choice Angellisa!

It is a good point, about buying twice, and I would agree in cases where either the costs of the lenses are more similar, or the person knows exactly what they want to do. The thing is, here you are comparing losing about $250 for a lens one would probably still use occasionally, even with a 2.8 zoom (light, easy to carry, etc.) vs. spending $1000 on a lens with no experience with that sort of weight and focal length and DoF. Still, you are right, I should have been less... aggressive with my response, and you were right to bring up the possibility of getting one.

Also, you are definitely correct in that everyone should have a nice big aperture prime in their kit.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Mostly, choice of lens depends on what sort of photography you want to do.

If you really just want to learn photography, then you can't go wrong with the 35mm 1.8 dx for $200. Photography has a lot of ins and outs. The best way to learn it is to take one thing at a time. The 35mm just works, and gets out of the way as soon as you slap it on your camera. Its sharper than every one of Nikon's kit zooms. It's low 1.8 aperture will allow you to experiment with bokeh, and depth of field. Its tiny, just like the dD3000. Together, they are only a little larger than the point and shoot super zooms (a rediculous class of camera, but I digress). I also like the focal length, because it closely approximates the way everything looks to my eyes.

Eventually, you will also want a little bit of telephoto. For that I would recomend the 55-200.

Until you can figure out how to use these lenses, you won't get any mileage out of the higher end stuff.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

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

angellisa you seam new in photography so you really need to explore and find for your self what is your thing.
You now have 18-55 and this little lens will give you very good images all the way from fairly wide up to portrait. 35 F/1.8 will give you a bit better images, but it seams to me that for you the ability to explore and play with photography is much more important.
You say you arte interested in close ups and outdoor so 55-200 VR will give you that and you could learn something about telephoto lenses and that is important.
Also, if your budget permits, you could get an older Sigma 10-20.
That set will give you everything you need to learn, and that is probably the most important thing for you at this stage.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

D3000 (Or Any DX Camera) beginner...need a new lens!

Reply »