Lenses for an inexperienced photographer

[jacob]

Hi all,
Only just started with photography, and have picked up a Nikon D50 cheaply as a means of getting some inexpensive experience.
The lens it came with is a Sigma 28 - 300mm / F3.5 - 6.3 DG Macro
Is this a good lens for a beginner to learn the ropes with, or are others more suitable?

I intend taking mostly outdoors / nature / animal action shots.

Thanks in advance,
Jacob

 

[Hairyduck]

Well that photo is a good start I'd say!

Lens wise that pretty much covers every focal length going so it should be fine for your needs to start with, something with a lower f number may prove useful for experimenting with focus, maybe just the standard 50mm 1.8 as a cheap starting point, it'll also make you think more about the composition as opposed to just zooming in and out with your other lens.

 

[BlackCloud]

Good thing about the d50 is it has the autofocus motor built into the body so you can use pretty much any AF lens unlike say the d40 or 60. For what you want to do and to cut your teeth on a new hobby that seems a fair combination unless you were ready to pay for razor sharp images and need low light capability of fast lenses. For general purpose work, maybe around town, at family occasions, try and look out for a less bulky and cheapish standard zoom lens, either the Nikon 18-55 (maybe £50 ish) or preferably the 18-70mm (usually £100-140 secondhand).

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I'd be tempted just to play around with the lens you have until you are confident in what you are doing and then when you find yourself thinking "I really could have done with a longer/faster lens for that shot" start looking to upgrade or add to your lens collection.

There's a temptation to rush in and buy the "recommended" lenses (50mm f/1.8 etc) without really knowing why and then finding you've spent a load of money on lenses that you don't really have any use for - and I know

 

[jacob]

Thanks for the replies. I assume when people mention 'faster' lenses they mean those with a lower F number / bigger aperture, or am I way off the mark?

The shots I'd really like to be able to take are of lurchers running fast, as shown below (not a great pic in any respect, but it gives an idea of what I have to contend with).

Thanks again,
Jacob.

 

[Hairyduck]

Thanks for the replies. I assume when people mention 'faster' lenses they mean those with a lower F number / bigger aperture, or am I way off the mark?

Nope, you're spot on there

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Thanks for the replies. I assume when people mention 'faster' lenses they mean those with a lower F number / bigger aperture, or am I way off the mark?

The shots I'd really like to be able to take are of lurchers running fast, as shown below (not a great pic in any respect, but it gives an idea of what I have to contend with).

Thanks again,
Jacob.

Fast glass (ideally f/2.8) is what you're after, but the wider aperture comes at a fairly heavy cost penalty, for something like a 70 or 80-200 f/2.8 lens (secondhand) you'll be looking at upwards of £400...