Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Which first lenses?

d5500 portrait macro zoom nikon

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1
Sdavis2012

Sdavis2012

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag
Hey everyone I am new to the dslr cameras. I am about to purchase a Nikon D5500. I am trying to decide what lenses to buy with it. I will probably buy a refurbished model with no lens and then pick out a few individual lenses. At first I thought about getting a 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6, a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S, and a 40mm f/2.8. But then I thought I might want something a little wider as well. So if I got an 18-140mm as well as the 50mm 1.8 and the 55-300, would that be a good starting point? I mainly want stuff for landscape and nature but also for portaits and eventually a macro (probably the 40mm 2.8). What would you recommend?

#2
Adam

Adam

    Nikon Forums Staff

  • Administrators
  • 1,335 posts
  • Country Flag

That sounds like a really good starting kit.  Good zoom coverage, and also a prime for when you need it.  Eventually adding a macro lens or something wider than the 50, like a 35mm F1.8, would be a good idea.



#3
Sdavis2012

Sdavis2012

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag
If you had to choose 2 or 3 of the ones I mentioned which would you pick. And also do you prefer the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8? I'm trying to keep the budget fairly low for now. Is the 50mm 1.8 worth getting even with the 18-140? I am going to Costa Rica this December and want a good setup to shoot the mountains/ beaches and rainforest but also family portrait type stuff.

#4
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

Really depends on what you expect to get more use from between the 35 and the 50.  The D5500 is a DX body which gives you about a 1.5 crop factor compared to a full frame FX body.  So your 50mm lens will effectively be a 75mm - more of a short telephoto / portrait lens where as the 35 will be closer to a 50mm (47.5) view.  Nothing to worry about, especially if you haven't shot with a full frame DSLR or old 35mm SLR.  If it were me, I'd probably go with a wide to short tele zoom (18-??) - you might be able to get a refurbished body with this and or a pair of "kit" zooms for a better price than buying individually.  There are kits with  an 18-55 and a 55-300 that are a good starting point with any of the other three you have mentioned.  From what I have seen you can usually find the kit lenses available used fairly easily if that option interests you.  For me, I'd probably pick the 40 if I had the 18-200+ range already covered with zooms since it would add macro capability and its in between the two others you are considering.  

 

Hope that helps!  Looking forward to seeing some of your images!



#5
Sdavis2012

Sdavis2012

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag
Yeah I just don't have much insight as to how a picture with a 40mm vs a 75mm will appear. I understand that somewhere around 50mm is about what your eyes would see but I'm not sure what would be best for taking portraits of people at different distances. The only reason I didn't mention the 18-55 is because I've heard it isn't that great. I'd probably buy the 18-140 over that option. I would assume this would be a semi "all in one" that I could keep on pretty often. I'm just not sure if I really even need a range of 200-300mm. Most of my shots will probably be close range.

#6
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

There are a few places on the net although I can't name one off the top of my head - maybe I saw it on Nikon's site - that show the same image at various focal lengths which should give you an idea.  An image created at 50mm on FX bodies or a similar equivalent on a DX body will be similar to what your eye sees in terms of magnification.

 

In my opinion...

For landscapes you will typically want a wide angle lens - same with group family photos, etc.  Individual / Couple portraits work well with a short telephoto.  Nature is a broad topic, but if you are trying to shoot a bird in a tree or an animal that is a bit of distance away, a 300 might not be enough.  There are times I've felt my 200-400 with 1.4 teleconverter (560mm equivalent) wasn't enough reach, but that's me.  Of course, the macro is fairly obvious...

 

You might be best to get the 18-140 or similar (18-200 or 18-300 are options as well.  I was quite happy with the results I got from an 18-135 on a DX body) and shoot for awhile to see what you feel is missing.  Or do that and add one of the three primes that you mentioned...hold off on the longer zoom until you decide whether you need the additional reach or not.  Either way the 18-140 or longer should be a good choice for a walk-around lens when you don't want to carry extra gear and have sufficient light.



#7
Sdavis2012

Sdavis2012

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag
Ok thanks that definitely helps out. Hopefully I'll be making a final decision soon and eventually will be posting some amateur photos for you guys :), if I think of any other questions I'll be back on here. Thanks a lot!

#8
Sdavis2012

Sdavis2012

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag
I actually just thought of one more question. If I end up getting the 18-140mm, would it be worth getting both the 35mm 1.8 AND the 40mm 2.8 or are they very similar? I've read that the 35 is more of a portait lens while the other is a budget macro. But looking at sample photos they seem very similar as far as detail and bokeh go. Should I just buy the 35 and wait on the 40? Thanks again!

#9
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I actually just thought of one more question. If I end up getting the 18-140mm, would it be worth getting both the 35mm 1.8 AND the 40mm 2.8 or are they very similar? I've read that the 35 is more of a portait lens while the other is a budget macro. But looking at sample photos they seem very similar as far as detail and bokeh go. Should I just buy the 35 and wait on the 40? Thanks again!

 

This depends on if you are interested in macro... The 40 gives a 1:1 scale, the 35 is 1:6.1 at the near limit. The 35 isn't a portrait lens in the traditional meaning, even if it is good for environmental portraits. What it is, is a fastish normal lens for the DX system. Think more Henri Cartier-Bresson's slices of time than traditional portraiture. 

 

If I was starting to build a lens system for DX on a budget today, my choices would be a used 16-85, a 55-300 and a 35/1.8. The 16 vs 18 doesn't seem much when set against losing 55 mm at the tele end but it means a diagonal FOV of 83 vs 76°, which is very noticeable. On the tele end, cropping is always an option but you can't add things that weren't captured at the edges.



#10
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I personally wouldn't think of either as a portrait lens - with a DX body I'd say 50 or somewhat longer for a portrait lens...But, there should be little difference in field of view between the two so I would think one or the other.  I assume you are looking at the 35 1.8 DX lens and the 40 2.8 DX lens.  I have never used either of those lenses.  If I were looking for Portrait and Macro I might look towards the 60mm for a DX body.  I think there are a few folks on here who have one or more of the lenses mentioned in the thread, so hopefully they'll chime in with their opinions...they may have also posted some samples in the lens database section.  



#11
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

It's really easy to become overwhelmed when picking a kit of lenses for your DSLR. I like to keep things simple when starting out so I'd limit my choices to two lenses... the first being the AFS 16-85DX that Peter mentioned but I'd pick the AFS 70-300G rather than the 55-300. With the 16-85 and 70-300 you have excellent coverage and since both of these lenses are vibration reduction lenses you should be able to get acceptable images at very low shutter speeds. They are a bit more expensive, although I see that the 70-300 has recently been reduced in price by $100US, but I think they make a better kit to build on.

 

If you decide later that you need a macro lens or spend a lot of time doing low light street photography, you can always add either the 40mm or the 35mm F/1.8.

 

--Ron



#12
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

As the price difference is only $100 now, I agree with Ron. The 70-300 VR is much better, even if the 55-300 is a good lens. The fast normal isn't as necessary anymore as it was when I used DX as a main system either as the DR and noise at high ISO has evolved so much since the D90 and D300 days.



#13
iNYONi

iNYONi

    Rob

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationLivingston, Scotland

Site Supporter

When I first got my D3100, I got the 18-55 kit lens and purchased the Tamron 70-300mm Macro lens with it. Once I moved to the 7100, I sold my 2 lenses and the 3100 and used the money to go towards my new lenses. I got a 50mm 1.8G and the above mentioned Nikon 70-300. These 2 lenses have served me well and i've gotten some great pictures with them The 70-300 is fantastic and the VR really does help. I posted images here Safari Park - Nature and Animals - NikonForums.com all were taken with the 70-300.



#14
LuvmyNikon

LuvmyNikon

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country Flag

I have a Nikon D7000 with a 70-200mm, 85mm, 18-55mm and 35mm lenses.  Which is the best lens to use to keep from having to switch lens all the time.  I was told that I should get a 17-55mm f/2.  I love shooting at events and weddings and taking photos of just about anything.  I am starting to try my hand at portrait photography since I have been asked alot to do portfolios.  I am really a beginner in the photography world but want to go pro.



#15
LuvmyNikon

LuvmyNikon

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country Flag

D7000 is my bag.  I have a 910 flash but some are telling me don't need to use it, it is too heavy.  This makes no sense to me.  Do you advise carrying an additional flash.  As I said before, I love taking pictures of just about anything and want to be prepared in all lighting situations.



#16
LuvmyNikon

LuvmyNikon

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country Flag

What is the best photo editor?  I was going to purchase photoshop but was told you need lightroom in addition to photoshop for photo editing.



#17
LuvmyNikon

LuvmyNikon

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country Flag

I take alot of pictures at my church events to practice taking photos, other photographers say I should go other places.  What do you recommend



#18
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

 

I have a Nikon D7000 with a 70-200mm, 85mm, 18-55mm and 35mm lenses.  Which is the best lens to use to keep from having to switch lens all the time.  I was told that I should get a 17-55mm f/2.  I love shooting at events and weddings and taking photos of just about anything.  I am starting to try my hand at portrait photography since I have been asked alot to do portfolios.  I am really a beginner in the photography world but want to go pro.

 

In my opinion, the concept of one lens to do it all is flawed. You will always give up something...be it speed, quality or portability. There are others who love using a single lens such as the Nikkor AF-S 18-300 for everything. It seems that you already have a fairly nice kit of lenses and I really don't see why someone would tell you to get a 17-55 F/2 except for the speed. You already have an 18-55 and most people say that this is a very good lens, especially considering that it's a "kit" lens. 

 

 

D7000 is my bag.  I have a 910 flash but some are telling me don't need to use it, it is too heavy.  This makes no sense to me.  Do you advise carrying an additional flash.  As I said before, I love taking pictures of just about anything and want to be prepared in all lighting situations.

 

I have a D7000 too. It's a great camera. And, the 910 Speedlight is fantastic. The main thing you need to do with that flash is get it off camera either by using a SC-28 or SC-29 TTL cord or by using either radio or IR flash triggers. For hand held work, I prefer the TTL cord. If you're shooting portraits, you might want to invest in a lightbox such as the Westcott Rapid Box Octa Speedlight Kit which works great with speedlights such as your Nikon SB-910.

 

westcott_2035_rapid_box_26_octa_13819429

 

 

 

What is the best photo editor?  I was going to purchase photoshop but was told you need lightroom in addition to photoshop for photo editing.

 

You can get both Photoshop and Lightroom for US$9.99 a month. That would be my suggestion.

 

 

I take alot of pictures at my church events to practice taking photos, other photographers say I should go other places.  What do you recommend

 

You should shoot whatever pleases you. Until you go pro the only person you have to please is yourself. Of course it doesn't hurt to get out and try to photograph a lot of different subjects under different lighting conditions. You can never learn too much about photography ... or indeed, any subject.

 

Good luck!

 

--Ron

 



#19
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

What is the best photo editor?  I was going to purchase photoshop but was told you need lightroom in addition to photoshop for photo editing.

Lightroom isn't absolutely necessary, but most basic editing is faster to do in LR. LR is included in the photography plan together with PS CC, so it doesn't cost anything extra. Bridge has lost many of it's nicer features since they started bundling LR.

I use Photo Mechanic as a DAM solution, Nikon's free Capture NX-D as a raw converter and PS with the Nik plugins if I need to do more. 


I have a Nikon D7000 with a 70-200mm, 85mm, 18-55mm and 35mm lenses.  Which is the best lens to use to keep from having to switch lens all the time.  I was told that I should get a 17-55mm f/2.  I love shooting at events and weddings and taking photos of just about anything.  I am starting to try my hand at portrait photography since I have been asked alot to do portfolios.  I am really a beginner in the photography world but want to go pro.

The 17-55/2.8 is a very good lens but it is heavy. The problem is that it ends at 55 mm, which is in the middle of the best focal lengths for portraiture. I would rather sacrifice some speed and get a 16-85 or the new 16-80 to replace the 18-55. I think you will find that you use the 45-~70 mm range extensively for portraits when you get used to that zoom. You still have the 85 for shallow depth of field or low-light portraits and the 70-200 when you need something longer.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: d5500, portrait, macro, zoom, nikon