You can do a lot with any lens. One of the lenses most people will recommend is a 50mm f/1.8, which is only about $150 for Nikon, and probably about the same price for Canon. You can do a lot with it. On the other end, there are several thousand dollar lenses. Some of it depends on the lens, and some of it depends on the user.
First thing you have to decide is Nikon or Canon. Typically, Nikon has the better camera bodies but Canon has better lenses.
Nikon's best macro lens is their 105mm f/2.8 Micro which runs around $900. However, you can also achieve some pretty good macro shots with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and extension tubes.
There are two ways to get a lens up to the 300mm range. The first is the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 which costs around $6,000. Yep...six thousand. However, you can get a 70-300mm zoom, but you do sacrifice a lot of aperture. More than that, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is slower to autofocus, making it difficult if you are shooting wildlife or sports.
But...you began this by asking about upgrading to a better camera. What do you have now? And what would you like to do?
You say in one breath that you want to upgrade to a better camera, but in the next breath, you talk about lenses. They are 2 separate animals. Don't waste your money on the camera. Invest it on the lens. Period. Please don't get sucked in by camera ads and salespeople. Big mistake.
Yup I would recommend second Hand or refurbished DSLR - put money towards some nice lenses.
You're talking about getting lenses from two different ends of the spectrum - a macro? a telephoto zoom? Probably good to choose one set for the time being (unless you have some serious cash to burn)
Nothing wrong with the Kit lens to start you off :P
Most of the camera brands are good. Nikon and Canon are the market leaders for a reason - overall quality, consistency, and range. They're not the only choice, as has been said, but they are most people's choice if they are considering investing heavily into a camera system.
Ignore fanboys. If someone tells you that one particular camera is best, there are one of a few reasons for it: They chose that brand and are trying to reinforce to themselves that they made the right choice; They got talked into that brand so persuasively that they think everything else is rubbish; or, They just don't have a clue what else is out there and how good it is. So, try stuff out and see what overall system you like. Check to see if the accessories you might want later are available for the system you like (and if there are ones available from other manufacturers so you don't have to pay triple the price for genuine branded products), and if the lens selection available suits your current and predicted future needs. Nikon and Canon usually win out at this point because they have a vast lens selection, and because other manufacturers produce equipment to suit these two brands - not a consideration for every photographer, but certainly for many.
I shot Nikon film and digital for many years. Now I shoot Canon. I like both systems, but Canon suits me a little better. I do not believe one is better than the other. If I had an unlimited budget, I would shoot Leica and Hasselblad exclusively - I have owned Leica, and love them, and I have shot Hasselblad, and found them to be incomparible, and priced to suit.
Lenses? Yes. More dollars = better image quality. But it is built on diminishing returns. If you are only ever going to look at photos on your computer and maybe some 4x6 prints, a kit lens will do the job (quality-wise). A 50mm f/1.8 is a great investment, at $100 for a Canon and $150 for a Nikkor, and will allow better DOF control and better quality than the kit lens. Super-zooms are functional, and also fine for small-medium print sizes with not too much cropping. You lose constant aperture with these, which can be annoying and also restricts your DOF control. As a general rule, a prime lens is going to give better quality and control for less money. However there are exceptions to this rule, in regards to the money.
Work out what you plan to do with your photography, and that will dictate the best glass to buy for your camera (and probably the choices of camera systems available to you, also). Unless you have money to burn or need to produce tack-sharp perfect images for rich clients, there is no need to spend thousands of dollars on glass. I do suggest having decent glass though, and a 50mm prime is decent glass for a low price. I know someone will chime in and say I'm wrong on this, but imo, kit lenses are terrible. I have a couple lying around my house - they make good paperweights. They are good for learning or for happy snaps, but there is nothing good about their image quality (unless you never plan to print larger than 4x6 and don't crop your images, in which case they are adequate).
RE :-Chris, i only use at the moment a mega cheap digital camera,and i am only a beginner to this hobby,so forgive me if i seem a little contradictory :))).
There is so much to choose from out there equiptment-wise,it can be a little overwhelming.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Nikon's best macro lens is their 105mm f/2.8 Micro which runs around $900. However, you can also achieve some pretty good macro shots with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and extension tubes.
There are two ways to get a lens up to the 300mm range. The first is the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 which costs around $6,000. Yep...six thousand. However, you can get a 70-300mm zoom, but you do sacrifice a lot of aperture. More than that, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is slower to autofocus, making it difficult if you are shooting wildlife or sports.
But...you began this by asking about upgrading to a better camera. What do you have now? And what would you like to do?
You're talking about getting lenses from two different ends of the spectrum - a macro? a telephoto zoom? Probably good to choose one set for the time being (unless you have some serious cash to burn)
Nothing wrong with the Kit lens to start you off :P
Ignore fanboys. If someone tells you that one particular camera is best, there are one of a few reasons for it: They chose that brand and are trying to reinforce to themselves that they made the right choice; They got talked into that brand so persuasively that they think everything else is rubbish; or, They just don't have a clue what else is out there and how good it is. So, try stuff out and see what overall system you like. Check to see if the accessories you might want later are available for the system you like (and if there are ones available from other manufacturers so you don't have to pay triple the price for genuine branded products), and if the lens selection available suits your current and predicted future needs. Nikon and Canon usually win out at this point because they have a vast lens selection, and because other manufacturers produce equipment to suit these two brands - not a consideration for every photographer, but certainly for many.
I shot Nikon film and digital for many years. Now I shoot Canon. I like both systems, but Canon suits me a little better. I do not believe one is better than the other. If I had an unlimited budget, I would shoot Leica and Hasselblad exclusively - I have owned Leica, and love them, and I have shot Hasselblad, and found them to be incomparible, and priced to suit.
Lenses? Yes. More dollars = better image quality. But it is built on diminishing returns. If you are only ever going to look at photos on your computer and maybe some 4x6 prints, a kit lens will do the job (quality-wise). A 50mm f/1.8 is a great investment, at $100 for a Canon and $150 for a Nikkor, and will allow better DOF control and better quality than the kit lens. Super-zooms are functional, and also fine for small-medium print sizes with not too much cropping. You lose constant aperture with these, which can be annoying and also restricts your DOF control. As a general rule, a prime lens is going to give better quality and control for less money. However there are exceptions to this rule, in regards to the money.
Work out what you plan to do with your photography, and that will dictate the best glass to buy for your camera (and probably the choices of camera systems available to you, also). Unless you have money to burn or need to produce tack-sharp perfect images for rich clients, there is no need to spend thousands of dollars on glass. I do suggest having decent glass though, and a 50mm prime is decent glass for a low price. I know someone will chime in and say I'm wrong on this, but imo, kit lenses are terrible. I have a couple lying around my house - they make good paperweights. They are good for learning or for happy snaps, but there is nothing good about their image quality (unless you never plan to print larger than 4x6 and don't crop your images, in which case they are adequate).
RE :-Chris, i only use at the moment a mega cheap digital camera,and i am only a beginner to this hobby,so forgive me if i seem a little contradictory :))).
There is so much to choose from out there equiptment-wise,it can be a little overwhelming.