ART Nikon Lens advice?

hellodon

Oct 26, 2006
5,017
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!
 

huntz0r

New Member
Apr 18, 2005
15,859
Charlotte, NC
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

and decide!
Sep 22, 2004
32,961
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 :hsugh:
 

huntz0r

New Member
Apr 18, 2005
15,859
Charlotte, NC
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? :hs:
 

wrong1

Member
Sep 12, 2004
1,355
socal
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? :hs:

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

New Member
Apr 18, 2005
15,859
Charlotte, NC
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

and decide!
Sep 22, 2004
32,961
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.
 

watagatapitusberry

OT Supporter
Jun 15, 2004
2,375
monument to man's arrogance
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 :o it's useful for low-light situations, but if you're shooting in doors you're gonna have to get creative in your positioning
 

gil franck

New Member
Jun 8, 2011
12
France
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 !
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
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 :o
 

TheManLouisianaFace

and decide!
Sep 22, 2004
32,961
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 :o


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.)
 

Marix

OT Supporter
May 23, 2006
27,969
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 :dunno:

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

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
251
Guests online
66
Total visitors
317

Forum statistics

Threads
369,706
Messages
16,911,530
Members
86,875
Latest member
DSimnovec