20 replies to this topic

[emccarthy25]

I am budgeting for a lens purchase and I need some help, as I cannot make up my mind.  Currently I only have the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my camera.  There are a few styles of photography I would like to learn - Interior and exterior architecture, macro, landscape, portrait.

 

I understand that for architecture, and specifically real estate photography, I will want a wind angle zoom - something like a 12-24mm lens.  Also, this lens should work well for landscape, I believe.

 

From what I've read, portraiture is best between 85 and 140mm.  I know that a 70-200mm zoom is often used in professional portraiture, but is there a prime that would work well?  Those zooms are a bit pricey.

 

I honestly have no idea what to look for regarding macro.

 

Ideally, I would like to have a max of two lenses to accomodate what I'm looking for, and I need to fit into a budget between $400-500.  If its not possible to find lens choices that will fit my desires, I will want to focus on the architecture(and landscape if appropriate).  I also don't know if in the zoom lenses, I should aim for a fixed aperture or if that shouldn't be a concern.

 

The camera is a D5500.  I have no problem buying used glass.  I would prefer to have the auto focus motor built into the lens, but if AF isn't important for a particular style, I'm OK with skipping it for better glass, if need be.  I'm hoping to make my purchase by the end of the month(this isn't a must, I'm just impatient, and want some glass, lol).

 

Thanks in advance!

[ScottinPollock]

Your not going to get two nice lenses for what you budgeted. Your current lens will be just dandy for landscape. The 85mm 1.8 would be an excellent portrait lens on a D5500, but that's pretty much your whole budget.

An ultrawide zoom is gonna be in the same ballpark. Sigma and Tokina have some nice offerings.

While the 55-200 (dirt cheap right now) is not fast enough to provide enough background separation for portraiture close up, at longer focal lengths it can, provided you have that kind of working distance. Note that longer focal lengths will require good light, or steady hands, or tripod.

Some of my best photos were taken with a sigma 10-20mm, but very few are landscape. It is rare you want so much foreground in those types of shots. It is great with architecture and still life though.

[ScottinPollock]

BTW, the 18-55 is a good little macro lens with good working distance. While it is not a 1:1 ratio lens, it gets pretty close:

Parts Samples

To get closer, with a decent amount of working distance your looking at 4 or 5 hundred bucks again. There are a variety of good 105mm f2.8 models around that money which would double as a good portrait lens.

[dcbear78]

Tamron have just updated their 11-24mm lens which should be pretty good for architecture and landscapes.

Tokina make a brilliant 100mm f2.8 macro lens that will also double up for portrait duties.

Only problem is each lens eats up your entire budget.

So I think you might be limited to second hand.

[emccarthy25]

I've got no issue with used lenses. If the updated Tamron is new, I might not be able to find out used.. If I use my kit lens for macro, that narrow down my needs.

What do you guys think of the 35 1.8 for architecture? Is it too long for interior shots? I think saw somewhere the Nikon 85mm 1.8 bundled with the 35 for around 500, but if an ultrawide zoom and a 105mm prime would be better I'll see what I can find.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


Edit: I looked around for that deal I mentioned, and it is NOT the 85 f/1.8, but instead it is an 85 f3.5. I'll have to find some reviews for it.

[ScottinPollock]

Try your kit lens at 35 indoors; I think you'll find it too long. That lens bundle comes with the f3.5 85 micro. Not great for portrait or macro.

While the 35 f1.8 is a great lens, I rarely use that focal length on crop sensor (it is equivalent to a 50 in full frame).

Doesn't sound like you've used the kit lens much. If it is the VRII, it is quite good, but a bit soft around 35mm. I'd recommend trying to use it for all you want to do initially, then you will have a much better feeling for what you need to add (faster, wider, longer, etc.).

[Merco_61]

In your situation, I would shoot lots with the kit zoom to start with. I would get a +5 and maybe a +10 diopter close-up lens of good quality to try some macro work. https://www.bhphotov...se_up_NL_5.html

https://www.bhphotov...lose_up_10.html

 

When you discover a need for another lens that solves a problem, get it but don't get this and that and the other just because someone says it is a must-have for this or that situation.

 

You will be surprised at how much you can do with the humble kit lens.

By the way, if you have the AF-P instead of the AF-S VR II kit zoom, you will need 55 instead of the 52 mm close-up lenses I linked to.

[emccarthy25]

With the shots I have taken with the kit lens, I have found that I want...more, I guess is how I can best put it. I want a faster lens because I like this background blur for close up shots. I am looking for more sharpness in the landscape shots I have taken, but I understand that I wasn't at the optimal aperture for that. I guess it will take some more shooting to determine what I need, more than what I want. Thanks for the suggestions

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[ScottinPollock]

Often times getting tack sharp photos is more about technique than it is glass. Take a look at the two SLRGear blur indexes below. One is of the AF-S VR II kit lens (the AF-P VR is actually a little better), and the other is for the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 ART (one of the most highly praised lenses for sharpness around). Both of these are at 24mm, with the aperture set for maximum sharpness. Do you see a lot of difference? Nope.

 

You should be able to get tack sharp landscapes in good light from either. If your's aren't, try 18mm at f5.6 or 24mm at f8, at 100-400 ISO. If those still aren't sharp, turn VR off and use a good tripod.

 

[emccarthy25]

Those are pretty neat graphs. It definitely seems like if I make any purchases, I have other things to focus on. A good tripod for starters, also a flash or two, maybe a grey card and some collapsible reflectors.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[ScottinPollock]

If you shoot raw, no need for a gray card as you can adjust white balance in post.

Yeah... Tripod is essential, and a solid head is as important as the legs.

[Merco_61]

When you are shopping for a gray card, please check out the Colorchecker Passport from X-Rite. It is a gray card and a colour chart in one, so you can use it to aid metering, for standard white balance and for profiling the light.

 

A good tripod system is probably the largest gamechanger after good glass. It isn't possible to explain how much difference it does, it is one of those things you have to experience.

[emccarthy25]

I have been shooting in RAW, and post processing in LR.

I do understand the need for a good tripod. I have an old cheap one from years ago that was used for a point and shoot, and it is.....insufficient to say the least. I was looking on Amazon at the Manfrotto offerings, but I'm not convinced on that brand. I'm still in the early stages of tripod research right now. I need something that is both good for travel, but relatively lightweight. I believe a ball head would probably be ideal for me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[leighgion]

Your budget isn't going to come anywhere close to covering idealized lenses for all those purposes, and perhaps that's a good thing. One of the biggest traps in photography is getting caught in the endless spiral of purchasing new gear, then coveting even more new gear in the believe that's going to improve your photography rather than spending the time actually taking photographs and learning from that. Trust me, I know, I have a pile of hardware in a closet at my mother's house (now thousands of miles away and out of my reach) to testify that I've been there. 

 

I wouldn't buy anything that costs more than $20 unless you have a very clear idea what the new purchase is going to offer you. "Wide angles are good for landscapes," does not even remotely count as a clear idea and it also is a very mistaken notion as landscapes are as likely to be taken with long lenses as wide ones.. I'd even be careful about splurging on a good tripod as depending how your personal style works out, a good tripod is every bit at risk as a good lens of ending up being a high quality paperweight if you realize late that it wasn't what you really needed after all.

 

Getting back to specifics though... Nikon kit lenses are remarkably good for what they are. For landscapes and architecture, I'd say you can keep trucking with your 18-55mm for some time and learn a lot. Shoot at 18mm enough and you'll get a much better feeling for if you really want/need wider than that or not. 

 

For portraits on a DX camera, I would recommend you consider the 50mm f/1.8G. It's a bit north of $200 new if I recall, and on a DX sensor it gives you a field of field roughly equivalent to 75mm on full frame, and so does a decent job for upper body portraits. For a very reasonable price you get superior light gathering power, depth of field control and if you stop down, some of the best sharpness for the dollar there is. If you're more interested in portraiture than general documentary photography, a 50mm is probably more useful on DX than the 35mm 1.8G (which is also fantastic, but perhaps not the best fit for you).

[emccarthy25]

Thanks for weighing in on this, leighgion. I read an article today that suggested treating the kit lens as two primes- an 18mm and a 55mm, and to try shooting exclusively at those focal lengths. I think doing that combined with the excellent advice I've received in this thread, hopefully I will learn enough to figure out what I should do regarding a lens purchase, and maybe I will become skilled enough that it won't be a wasted purchase

From the shots I've taken, I'm positive that I want at least a half decent tripod, and I'm considering a ring flash but I'm not sold the flash yet. Tripod first, then we shall see

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[ScottinPollock]

I was looking on Amazon at the Manfrotto offerings, but I'm not convinced on that brand... I believe a ball head would probably be ideal for me.

Manfrotto makes great legs, though I'm not crazy about their heads. For ball heads, Benro makes some good ones without breaking the bank. I have a manfrotto 130 tripod for the studio, and a lighter Benro tripod for out and about... both with Benro ball heads.

[leighgion]

Thanks for weighing in on this, leighgion. I read an article today that suggested treating the kit lens as two primes- an 18mm and a 55mm, and to try shooting exclusively at those focal lengths. I think doing that combined with the excellent advice I've received in this thread, hopefully I will learn enough to figure out what I should do regarding a lens purchase, and maybe I will become skilled enough that it won't be a wasted purchase

From the shots I've taken, I'm positive that I want at least a half decent tripod, and I'm considering a ring flash but I'm not sold the flash yet. Tripod first, then we shall see

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Sounds like a plan. If you're really that into landscapes, then a better tripod is one of the safest investments long as you find one that's not heavier than you're willing to deal with.

 

Far as ring flashes go.. they're a much more specialized item. Were you meaning the LED models meant for macro photography?

[emccarthy25]

Indeed, I am referring to the flashes for macro photography. I haven't done much research into them yet, though.

I've done a little research into tripods, and so far the least expensive I want to go is the $100 range, but I may have to open the tripod budget a bit more

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ScottinPollock]

Indeed, I am referring to the flashes for macro photography. I haven't done much research into them yet, though.

I've done a little research into tripods, and so far the least expensive I want to go is the $100 range, but I may have to open the tripod budget a bit more

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

A hundred will get you decent legs, but plan on at least that for a good ball head. Believe me... you don't want to cheap out here and have to do this twice!

[Merco_61]

To make the budget stretch further, you could look for a used set of Manfrotto 055 legs and get a ballhead with an Arca-Swiss compatible quick release. Arca-Swiss is the industry standard, so that is what you will have to deal with if you want to get an L-plate, macro focusing rail, nodal slide or other nifty tools for your landscape and macro shooting.

 

The 055 and to a somewhat lesser degree the 190 legs from Manfrotto are the closest you get to indestructible without going into Sachtlers and other high-end legs.