With My Birthday Coming Up And Family Asking What I Want. I've Decided To Pool Them All Together And Get New Gadgets For My Camera. I Currently Have A Nikon D3100 And A Nikon Nikkor AF D 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 AF-D Lens. I Also Mostly Take Pictures Of My Son And Landscape. I WoulD Love Your Input On WhatMy Next Purchase Should Be. Thank You In Advance.
Like Jake @soren, I would go for a lens to cover lengths you can't shoot with your current standard zoom. I can vouch for the 10-20 Sigma f/3.5, really nice ultra wide zoom that just gobbles up everything in front of it and has remarkably low distortion at these lengths. It is not exactly inexpensive though. Here's a shot of mine with it.
If you do want a "fast" lens, I agree with Jake on that one too, the f/1.8 35mm. I use it primarily for really bad light conditions rather than the narrow DoF wide open, but it works well for that too. The lens distortion is noticeable when there a lot of lines in the shot, but an editor can take care of that. For US$200, it is a bargain for what it does well. Here's a shot of mine in really bad light at ISO 6400.
For the third time agreeing with Jake, you don't need a 50mm for a "nifty fifty." On your Nikon, the 35mm gives you the angle of view of a full frame 50 (exactly 52.5) and serves beautifully in that regard. 50mm turns into an equivalent 75, which I personally find an awkward length for a prime, except perhaps for portraits where "80" is classic. Others claim I'm all wet on that, but it's my experience. But needless to say, you can shoot at both these lengths with your zoom already.
After you have those covered, you could try a zoom out to 200mm or further. The general purpose sigma 18-250 would be my choice here, significantly better than the 18-270 Tamron; I have experience with both of them. And the Sigma is much more economical than an "equivalent" Nikkor. Notice that these zooms cover your current zoom range completely, so you might then like to dispose of it on the used market, eBay, or trade it in at a reputable super camera store.
With an active youngster I would be tempted to go with a fast prime, something like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC.
Going f1.8 is not dropping much on speed so the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is also a good choice or if the budget will stretch the f1.4.
Whilst these are within the focal length or your current zoom the zoom is not as fast and on dull days or indoors the difference is useful. I find flash seldom flattering to the faces of the young apart from the distraction it brings.
If you don't need the f1.4 or f1.8 apetures and want to extend the zoom range the the Sigma 10-20 is as said elsewhere a good choice. Consider also the 70-300, the VR version if you can stretch to that or the non VR version should be still available.
For something different and at not too high a cost maybe the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro should come into the reckoning.
hmm tough one. You've currently got a general "one size fits all" lens.
I would ask what you really want to shoot more - portrait or landscape and get a lens that will do it well for you. if it were me i'd aim to eventually get 2 lenses :
1. A good wide angle for landscape - note for this you dont need to get a super fast one as you'll end up wanting to shoot at F11 anyway and you'll need a tripod.
2. A good lens for portrait - either a 50mm prime or a good 24-70 zoom. Something that stops down to F2.8 or lower
I have a D3000. For Christmas my husband got me a Sigma 80-300 with macro capability. I love it. I know that a true macro is better, but this lens is very versital, and has worked great so far.
After looking through my project, it appears that I haven't been loading much for landscapes, but here are a few of the macro shots that I have taken.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
here is a shot from the first time I used it
If you do want a "fast" lens, I agree with Jake on that one too, the f/1.8 35mm. I use it primarily for really bad light conditions rather than the narrow DoF wide open, but it works well for that too. The lens distortion is noticeable when there a lot of lines in the shot, but an editor can take care of that. For US$200, it is a bargain for what it does well. Here's a shot of mine in really bad light at ISO 6400.
For the third time agreeing with Jake, you don't need a 50mm for a "nifty fifty." On your Nikon, the 35mm gives you the angle of view of a full frame 50 (exactly 52.5) and serves beautifully in that regard. 50mm turns into an equivalent 75, which I personally find an awkward length for a prime, except perhaps for portraits where "80" is classic. Others claim I'm all wet on that, but it's my experience. But needless to say, you can shoot at both these lengths with your zoom already.
After you have those covered, you could try a zoom out to 200mm or further. The general purpose sigma 18-250 would be my choice here, significantly better than the 18-270 Tamron; I have experience with both of them. And the Sigma is much more economical than an "equivalent" Nikkor. Notice that these zooms cover your current zoom range completely, so you might then like to dispose of it on the used market, eBay, or trade it in at a reputable super camera store.
Good shooting!
Going f1.8 is not dropping much on speed so the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is also a good choice or if the budget will stretch the f1.4.
Whilst these are within the focal length or your current zoom the zoom is not as fast and on dull days or indoors the difference is useful. I find flash seldom flattering to the faces of the young apart from the distraction it brings.
If you don't need the f1.4 or f1.8 apetures and want to extend the zoom range the the Sigma 10-20 is as said elsewhere a good choice. Consider also the 70-300, the VR version if you can stretch to that or the non VR version should be still available.
For something different and at not too high a cost maybe the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro should come into the reckoning.
I would ask what you really want to shoot more - portrait or landscape and get a lens that will do it well for you. if it were me i'd aim to eventually get 2 lenses :
1. A good wide angle for landscape - note for this you dont need to get a super fast one as you'll end up wanting to shoot at F11 anyway and you'll need a tripod.
2. A good lens for portrait - either a 50mm prime or a good 24-70 zoom. Something that stops down to F2.8 or lower
After looking through my project, it appears that I haven't been loading much for landscapes, but here are a few of the macro shots that I have taken.