ART Nikon Lens advice?

[hellodon]

Hey guys,

I got a D90 for Xmas and it came with an 18-155 lens. I have yet to buy any lenses because I wanted to see what kind of things I felt I needed after shooting for a while with the one I have.

Well...I've determined that I want something that works well for low light, and something that works well for close ups.

Any suggestions? Not looking to spend a shit load of money, something reasonably priced that does both or separate lenses that are best for each type of thing. I'd certainly appreciate any recommendations!

Thanks in advance!

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8

OR

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM Macro

 

[jigelow]

Af-s 35 1.8G DX

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

Af-s 35 1.8G DX

This too, if you want a prime lens.

 

[hellodon]

Af-s 35 1.8G DX

This too, if you want a prime lens.

This is actually the exact one I almost bought this weekend. Awesome, guess I was on the right track. Thanks guys! Appreciate it!

 

[darksands]

Af-s 35 1.8G DX

.

 

[huntz0r]

The 35 is not really a lens for close-up work, though. It's too short.

For low light + close-up (mild telephoto) you want a 50 1.8, or for more money an 85 1.8, or a used 35-70 2.8 which is a nice pro lens and a bit more versatile. I've been thinking a lot about picking up one of these since it should be well suited to a lot of things I want to shoot.

None of the above will replace your kit lens, of course -- for that, the Tamron 17-50 is the usual solution for those on a budget. 50mm on DX is just barely getting into a good portrait range, but it works alright.

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

The 35 is not really a lens for close-up work, though. It's too short.

For low light + close-up (mild telephoto) you want a 50 1.8, or for more money an 85 1.8, or a used 35-70 2.8 which is a nice pro lens and a bit more versatile.

None of the above will replace your kit lens, of course -- for that, the Tamron 17-50 is the usual solution for those on a budget. 50mm on DX is just barely getting into a good portrait range though.

I think a longer lens would be for far away work

 

[huntz0r]

Hmm. When I read "close-up" I think of telephoto -- bringing the subject close -- like a headshot. As in, "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

For shooting things very close, maybe you'd want a 60mm Micro?

 

[wrong1]

Hmm. When I read "close-up" I think of telephoto -- bringing the subject close -- like a headshot. As in, "Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up."

For shooting things very close, maybe you'd want a 60mm Micro?

60 macro, two birds one stone... but painful slow focusing/hunting


I'm not sure if he meant "head shot" close up, or "macro" close up.

 

[huntz0r]

50mm on DX is alright for portraits and wide stuff and gets as close as most any lens will other than a dedicated macro, and constant f/2.8 on the Tammy makes it good for low light, and it replaces the range of that slow kit lens.

So probably this is the lens to get.

Truth be told, I haven't really used my 35 or 50 much at all of late, I've been leaving the Tammy on full time. The one thing I really seem to lack at the moment is an 85 or a 35-70 so that I can have that nice portrait tele range without having to resort to the 80-200, which is kind of a beast.

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

50mm on DX is alright for portraits and wide stuff and gets as close as most any lens will other than a dedicated macro, and constant f/2.8 makes it good for low light.

So probably this is the lens to get.

Truth be told, I haven't really used my 35 or 50 much at all of late, I've been leaving the Tammy on full time. The one thing I really seem to lack is an 85 or a 35-70 so that I can have that nice portrait tele range without having to resort to the 80-200, which is kind of a beast.

No, no, no.

 

[huntz0r]

No, no, no.

Whatever dude. I don't even know if I know what this thread is about, but now there's plenty of info here for the OP to parse.

on that note

 

[watagatapitusberry]

i have a d80

first lens i bought was the tamron 17-50 2.8, which i think is a great lens, especially if you take price into account. great for a walk around: not heavy, useable range, and i think it looks cool too.

i also bought the nikkor 50mm 1.4- this lens is, i hate to say, impractical for daily use but i'm a sucker for bokeh and still mange to use this lens frequently it's useful for low-light situations, but if you're shooting in doors you're gonna have to get creative in your positioning

 

[fatmoocow]

35 for close portraits will distort faces, make noses look bigger, etc.

 

[gil franck]

The Samyang 85mm is pretty good for portraits. It's not an autofocus but it has two advantages : 1.8 for low light ; its price !

 

[dmora]

Af-s 35 1.8G DX

bloop

 

[Marix]

35 1.8 hands down

Tiny, lightweight, silent and fast focusing, focuses close, sharp, good in low light.

After using it quite a bit, the tamron is a good lens, but I don't know why the internet leghumps it so much. It has less range than your kit lens, and the aperture speed gain isn't that great.

At the wide end, it's only 2/3 stop closer than the kit lens (2.8 vs 3.5). And at 50mm it's probably only 1-1.5 stops faster. At least the prime buys you a good speed advantage, and lightweight etc.

Kit lens is absolutely fine for day to day stuff, when you arguably don't *need* to use apertures of less than f4 anyway

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

35 1.8 hands down

Tiny, lightweight, silent and fast focusing, focuses close, sharp, good in low light.

After using it quite a bit, the tamron is a good lens, but I don't know why the internet leghumps it so much. It has less range than your kit lens, and the aperture speed gain isn't that great.

At the wide end, it's only 2/3 stop closer than the kit lens (2.8 vs 3.5). And at 50mm it's probably only 1-1.5 stops faster. At least the prime buys you a good speed advantage, and lightweight etc.

Kit lens is absolutely fine for day to day stuff, when you arguably don't *need* to use apertures of less than f4 anyway

It's wayyyyyyyyyyyyy sharper than a kit lens, especially wide open. Better contrast, too. (Probably from a better multi-coating, but that's just a guess.)

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

35 for close portraits will distort faces, make noses look bigger, etc.

Not on a crop body. It's equivalent to 50mm.

 

[Marix]

It's wayyyyyyyyyyyyy sharper than a kit lens, especially wide open. Better contrast, too. (Probably from a better multi-coating, but that's just a guess.)

While true, it probably doesn't matter in reality. Sharper only matters if you're looking at images 100% or printing huge. And contrast can be added in PP. You're talking about small differences in reality. Tamron is nicer no doubt, but the kit lens isn't a total POS.

imo, the tamron just seems like a half measure. 2.8 is faster, but not really faster than the kit, and the focal length choice is obviously less than the kit lens. I think if you're going to go "low light", you might as well get a much faster prime. Not to mention that the 35 is much cheaper

Just personal preference though, since I like shooting with primes.

 

[wrong1]

Not on a crop body. It's equivalent to 50mm.

Fov is the same, but 35mm is still 35mm and will distort more than the 50 up close.

 

[TheManLouisianaFace]

Fov is the same, but 35mm is still 35mm and will distort more than the 50 up close.

You're right, I confused FOV and Perspective.