I've posted a similar question about lenses before, but now I am looking for peoples' opinions on some specific lenses. I have a Nikon D5000 w/ just the kit lens (18-55mm). I am ancy for a new lens but feel like I go in circles trying to pick one! I think I have it narrowed down to either the: 18-200mm AF-S VR, 17-300mm AF-S VR or a prime lens. I am really going back on forth on the 18-200 and 17-300 because I don't think it would make sense to have both.
I would love to get into my own photography business of doing pics of kids, families, seniors & engagements (not ready for weddings!!) so would like to start building my arsonal if you will!
If anyone has any opinions on which may be best to get, especially if it is any first hand experience I would appreciate it!
Nikon Lens Comparisons
Printable View
-
27th July 2010, 01:12 AMbrenny130Nikon Lens Comparisons
-
27th July 2010, 01:21 AMShadowmanre: Nikon Lens Comparisons
If you don't need the zoom go with a prime lens, but if you plan to increase your range of photo subjects consider adding a zoom. You'll get more advice from others but for starters do a comparison of any lens you consider and look for one that provides the best aperture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brenny130
-
27th July 2010, 06:32 AMDave Humphriesre: Nikon Lens Comparisons
Hi Brenny,
I have all three (sort of) :)
I started with the 18-200, instead of a kit lens, it is perfectly serviceable, but living with it for over a year then getting two new ones means it has temporarily fallen from favour and I use the 70-300mm, which I found to be better than expected - but if I tell you that, you will have the opposite experience! (it's all about expectations). The other lens I got was the 105mm f2.8 Macro - I like having the extra speed and narrower DoF this offers, not to mention the Macro facility (meaning in practice; nothing is too close).
I have to say though, that niether the body, nor those lenses, would I consider remotely ideal for building a pro career on, most are DX (105 excepted), so couldn't be transferred to a FF body in time and the D5000 limits AF lens choices severely.
Unfortunately, just enjoying photography is not the only criteria needed to start a career, many other skills are required to run your own business, I don't know whether you have those. I do hope so.
Hope that helps, -
27th July 2010, 11:08 PMbrenny130re: Nikon Lens Comparisons
thanks for the input Dave. As for my dream of my own business, I defiinitly know that I would need a different camera body, I was unaware that the lenses couldn't be transferred to a ff so thats good info. (on a side note, I plan on easing very sloooowly into the business thing due to the understanding that it is not as easy as a snap of my fingers-though that would be nice!)
If you had to pick between the 70-300mm and the 18-200mm, which would you pick?
Thanks again!!! -
28th July 2010, 06:35 AMDave Humphriesre: Nikon Lens ComparisonsPersonally, if I had a kit lens that went from 18mm, I would pick the 70-300mm, BUT (and it's a biggie) I would be using it for shooting wildlife at distance, OK some of that is down to about 5 feet distant (dragon flies) while others are more like 200 yards (and a big crop!), but that is not to say it is suitable for what you want to shoot. And don't forget it is DX only.Quote:
Originally Posted by brenny130
Also, I have raised your expectations, so now, if you get one, it won't be as good as I said ;)
HTH, -
28th July 2010, 08:06 AMColin SouthernRe: Nikon Lens ComparisonsHi Brenny,Quote:
Originally Posted by brenny130
Just be aware that those kinds of pics actually need quite a bit of gear, with quite an emphasis on lighting and light modifiers. I think my average "kid" shot from "shot" to "printed canvas" often uses around $60,000 worth of gear (which kinda makes me laugh when people tell me "we don't need to pay for portraits of our kids since we bought a <insert name of P&S camera here> camera - it takes really great shots") :)
The subtle difference between amateur & professional level shooting is that the amateur has the luxury of setting up the subject to suit the equipment he has, so that he gets "a few good shots" (which usually doesn't require a lot of equipment) but at a professional level you really have to adapt to the environment you're given, and the expectation is that the vast majority of the shots will be executed to a high standard (so that the "keepers" can be chosen from a variety of expressions & poses -- eliminating 90% because of photographer's mistakes isn't acceptable at a professional level). And even with my fairly vast arsenal of equipment I usually STILL find myself having to improvise. -
28th July 2010, 10:43 AMLetrowRe: Nikon Lens ComparisonsI just did a roadtrip in some of the US national parks with the 18-200mm lens. Performed quite nice, but take into account (as mentioned above) that these are DX lenses. I use this as the only lens at the moment, because I have to travel light. The 18-200mm range suits me fine for that purpose. You get beautiful landscapes and reasonable close-ups, so it would depend on your particular needs I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by brenny130
-
29th July 2010, 06:39 AMBill44Re: Nikon Lens ComparisonsDave the AFS 70-300 is usable on FF, and it is quite a good lens for the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Humphries
-
29th July 2010, 11:52 AMDave HumphriesRe: Nikon Lens ComparisonsOoops, Thanks for the correction Bill, I coulda sworn I saw a big imprinted "DX" on the box, but I must be mistooken, online checks confirm you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill44
Thanks, (that's good news) -
1st August 2010, 02:21 AMbrenny130Re: Nikon Lens Comparisons
Thanks for the feedback everyone! It's much appreciated!