Essential lenses?

[pingu666]

the holga lens is all plastic, hence the price
no electronics, no glass, no metal

you could look on youtube or amazon for reviews
its very cheap and cheerful

 

[deductress]

I really wouldn't go down that route, cheap zoom lenses are cheap for a reason. Before you spend any money, spend some time shooting with the 50mm and see how you go, that combo is capable of creating stunning images even in moderate light, apologies for the cheesy quote but 'it aint the arrow its the Indian!'

Another thing to consider is contacting a (good) photographer that isn't on your doorstep but within easy reach and see if they'd be will to give you some 1:1 tuition on using the kit you have for portraits. For many portrait and wedding photographers this is a quiet time of year and they may welcome the extra income.

Good suggestion, there's plenty of well-known portrait photographers around where i live so shouldn't be a problem finding someone.
I am looking forward to using my 50mm now! Was just getting discouraged with the comments saying it's not a great lens that's all.

 

[HoppyUK]

Would anyone else second this? I don't tend to like buying electronics off ebay, certainly for so cheap.

That was is a somewhat surreal suggestion, even for Pingu

The Tamron 70-300 you linked earlier is not a great lens, but if budget is critical, the Sigma 70-300 (non-APO) is far better for similar money http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-30...qid=1420027008&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma+70-300mm However, from all your various posts I think a telezoom of some sort is probably quite a safe bet, in which case the Tamron 70-300 VC is the outstanding choice and is particularly good value ATM http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-70-3...1420027225&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron+70-300mm+vc

Don't worry about negative comments re the 50/1.8. While it adds nothing to your focal length range, it extends your aperture choices down to f/1.8 for shallow depth of field. DoF control is a key aspect of creative photography and there you have it. Try it for portraits at f/1.8

Some one-to-one help is a good plan. There will be a camera club nearby where you'll be made very welcome. Cost is modest, though I don't think a first meeting will cost anything. They're all affiliated to the Photographic Alliance of Great Britain, find your local one here http://www.thepagb.org.uk/links.htm

 

[deductress]

That was is a somewhat surreal suggestion, even for Pingu

The Tamron 70-300 you linked earlier is not a great lens, but if budget is critical, the Sigma 70-300 (non-APO) is far better for similar money http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-300mm-Nikon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012X43P2/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1420027008&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma 70-300mm However, from all your various posts I think a telezoom of some sort is probably quite a safe bet, in which case the Tamron 70-300 VC is the outstanding choice and is particularly good value ATM http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-70-300-4-5-6-Lens-Nikon/dp/B003YUBTIA/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1420027225&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron 70-300mm vc

Don't worry about negative comments re the 50/1.8. While it adds nothing to your focal length range, it extends your aperture choices down to f/1.8 for shallow depth of field. DoF control is a key aspect of creative photography and there you have it. Try it for portraits at f/1.8

Some one-to-one help is a good plan. There will be a camera club nearby where you'll be made very welcome. Cost is modest, though I don't think a first meeting will cost anything. They're all affiliated to the Photographic Alliance of Great Britain, find your local one here http://www.thepagb.org.uk/links.htm

I appreciate the advice, the 70-200 has now been removed from my wishlist, and 70-300 put in its place. XD
Yeah, think the 50mm sounds perfect for me as a total novice in regards to portrait photography, should help me extend my knowledge, instead of going straight into a heavy duty lens that may be well beyond my skill.
And thank you for the link, will have a wee look through now. =]

EDIT: Does the recommended 70-300 work fine with a D3200? It just says AF, not AF-S - just making sure i'm not getting myself confused again.

 

[Swanseajack]

As Richard has said, the second one in his link is the one to go for, it's a lot better than the cheaper ones mentioned, I have owned this lens and I have found it excellent and I aslo prefered it to the Nikon 70-300VR I have owned. It has the in-built motor so will AF (Auto Focus) on your camera.> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-70-300-4-5-6-Lens-Nikon/dp/B003YUBTIA/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1420027225&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron 70-300mm vc

I believe the AFS lens have a built in motor to work on your camera automatically (spl) and some of the AF ones don't. Some of the older lens (AF, AF-D) are best used on cameras with a built in motor, like the D7000. Otherwise they will be manual focus only but will still fit your camera.

The different manufactures use different coding for thier lenses with built AF motors, AFS Nikon, HSM Sigma, USD Tamron etc.......................

 

[sk66]

Required lenses:
A short one (10-20mm)
A medium one (35-85mm)
A long one (150-200mm)
And for wildlife, a really long one (300mm+)

You now have three lenses in the second category... and all pretty tight together (18-55, 40, 50). Why? It seems to me you are buying stuff without a well defined need/purpose and with the focus being on cheap.

The 18-55 came with the camera. Fine, it's a very decent lens; you can do a lot with it and it fits into the first two categories.
The 40mm is a macro, but it's a cheap macro for a reason. I have to guess that you aren't doing true macro with it, and if you're not then the same could probably be done with the 18-55 or a different (longer) lens.
You're buying/bought the 50mm 1.8g. It will give similar performance at similar apertures as the kit lens does... IMO, not enough difference to make/break an image. The 10mm and one stop of aperture doesn't make it that much different from your 40mm. But, it will allow you to use wider apertures for need/creative use. There's nothing wrong with that, but it comes with it's own issues. If you're struggling to take quality images with the kit lens then you will probably really struggle with a 50mm @ f/1.8.

The only *need* you've defined is a wildlife lens and your budget is very tight for that... You are looking at something like a Sigma 150-500mm or the Nikon/Tamron 70-300mm. Of the two, IMO the 70-300 will probably be more versatile for you overall, but less suited to small subjects/longer distances... it is a little cheaper and faster than the Sigma. This is again a choice of price vs performance/capability (it always is...). If your performance requirements aren't very high then maybe a lens like this will suit you. But if your requirements/needs aren't very high, is it really worth spending all of your budget on?
Personally, I wouldn't be happy with a 70-300 for either of your needs (farming/wildlife) at a professional level. And if your goal is truly to build a professional portfolio/business photographing "farming," then I don't think it's a great choice; it's a good choice to "mostly" cover a lot of what you want at lower cost.

Buying quality lenses that fit a need is money well spent. Buying lenses just because you want to or because someone recommended it probably isn't. My best suggestion (from what I've gathered) is that you save your money. And when you find a real defined need you have to fill, maybe you'll have the budget to satisfy the requirement.

FWIW, a lens doesn't have to be a prime, fast, or expensive to fill a need. But a specific need may require an expensive fast prime (or zoom). Most serious wildlife photographers are using long primes that cost more than $5k and up to almost $20k. For wildlife I mostly use a 400mm f/2.8 that costs ~ $10k. But I also use a 28-300 super zoom as a general purpose travel lens with good results (previously it was an 18-200 on DX).

 

[sk66]

BTW, for someone with your primary goals/subjects/situations I would think strobist type lighting equipment/skills to be a more prominent requirement than a general lens is.

 

[deductress]

Required lenses:
A short one (10-20mm)
A medium one (35-85mm)
A long one (150-200mm)
And for wildlife, a really long one (300mm+)

You now have three lenses in the second category... and all pretty tight together (18-55, 40, 50). Why? It seems to me you are buying stuff without a well defined need/purpose and with the focus being on cheap.

The 18-55 came with the camera. Fine, it's a very decent lens; you can do a lot with it and it fits into the first two categories.
The 40mm is a macro, but it's a cheap macro for a reason. I have to guess that you aren't doing true macro with it, and if you're not then the same could probably be done with the 18-55 or a different (longer) lens.
You're buying/bought the 50mm 1.8g. It will give similar performance at similar apertures as the kit lens does... IMO, not enough difference to make/break an image. The 10mm and one stop of aperture doesn't make it that much different from your 40mm. But, it will allow you to use wider apertures for need/creative use. There's nothing wrong with that, but it comes with it's own issues. If you're struggling to take quality images with the kit lens then you will probably really struggle with a 50mm @ f/1.8.

The only *need* you've defined is a wildlife lens and your budget is very tight for that... You are looking at something like a Sigma 150-500mm or the Nikon/Tamron 70-300mm. Of the two, IMO the 70-300 will probably be more versatile for you overall, but less suited to small subjects/longer distances... it is a little cheaper and faster than the Sigma. This is again a choice of price vs performance/capability (it always is...). If your performance requirements aren't very high then maybe a lens like this will suit you. But if your requirements/needs aren't very high, is it really worth spending all of your budget on?
Personally, I wouldn't be happy with a 70-300 for either of your needs (farming/wildlife) at a professional level. And if your goal is truly to build a professional portfolio/business photographing "farming," then I don't think it's a great choice; it's a good choice to "mostly" cover a lot of what you want at lower cost.

Buying quality lenses that fit a need is money well spent. Buying lenses just because you want to or because someone recommended it probably isn't. My best suggestion (from what I've gathered) is that you save your money. And when you find a real defined need you have to fill, maybe you'll have the budget to satisfy the requirement.

FWIW, a lens doesn't have to be a prime, fast, or expensive to fill a need. But a specific need may require an expensive fast prime (or zoom). Most serious wildlife photographers are using long primes that cost more than $5k and up to almost $20k. For wildlife I mostly use a 400mm f/2.8 that costs ~ $10k. But I also use a 28-300 super zoom as a general purpose travel lens with good results (previously it was an 18-200 on DX).

Actually i bought the 40mm because it came highly recommended and it's a good lens. I've sold some of my work taken with that lens. Maybe i'm not doing "true macro" by your definition, but macro work is my favourite and i love the images that lens has allowed me to produce - incidentally so do the people who have bought my prints.

I've also bought the 50mm due to recommendations, certainly the advice from here has helped but i actually bought it due to a friend's recommendations after viewing some of his work - i think it will be quite efficient at starting me off in portrait work.

Thanks.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, you've seen a style or viewpoint that you want to pursue and that's influenced your final decision. There's been a lot of "you need this" on here, some of it very good advice, some quite poor. The 50mm is very versatile lens and offers a good viewpoint. Whilst a short telephoto (85mm for example) is often considered for portraits and is great for head and shoulder type shots due to a shortened and flattering perspective the 50mm enables the the subject to be put in greater context to the environment. A pianist sitting at a piano for example. I'm glad you got there in the end, looking forward to seeing some of your images soon.

 

[deductress]

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, you've seen a style or viewpoint that you want to pursue and that's influenced your final decision. There's been a lot of "you need this" on here, some of it very good advice, some quite poor. The 50mm is very versatile lens and offers a good viewpoint. Whilst a short telephoto (85mm for example) is often considered for portraits and is great for head and shoulder type shots due to a shortened and flattering perspective the 50mm enables the the subject to be put in greater context to the environment. A pianist sitting at a piano for example. I'm glad you got there in the end, looking forward to seeing some of your images soon.

Thank you very much. =]

 

[sk66]

Actually i bought the 40mm because it came highly recommended and it's a good lens. I've sold some of my work taken with that lens. Maybe i'm not doing "true macro" by your definition, but macro work is my favourite and i love the images that lens has allowed me to produce - incidentally so do the people who have bought my prints.

I've also bought the 50mm due to recommendations, certainly the advice from here has helped but i actually bought it due to a friend's recommendations after viewing some of his work - i think it will be quite efficient at starting me off in portrait work.

Thanks.

I get the feeling that you felt my response as something of an attack... it wasn't. You asked a question that is pretty much unanswerable. There are very few cases where a particular lens is "essential" and "professional requirements" vary by situation/individual.
I was just trying to have you consider what you are buying and why without being as dependent on other's suggestions. For instance, if the examples of your friends work you admired were not very shallow DOF images taken at f/1.x, then you don't need an f/1.x lens to replicate them. If they were taken at f/2.8+, then you really already had that covered.
And IMHO, it is very seldom that a particular lens really "allows you to create" an image. There are usually many ways to achieve the same end result/goal.

Don't get me wrong, the 40 and the 50 both have the ability to do things that you can't do with the kit lens. If you are using them for that, then great. Plus, they are both very good lenses for the money (primes usually are).
But if you are not using them for that, then they probably weren't good purchases at any price.

If you are not using the 40/50 for what they uniquely can do maybe you could have just gotten the 70-300mm you're now looking to add, for about the same money as the other two.
But, the 70-300 is not really a "professional lens." So if you do get it, don't be surprised if you decide you need to replace it with a better/more expensive lens later on. And if you do buy a lens such as this I suggest you buy it used (~50%)... let someone else who has decided they need to upgrade take the big hit on value.

Here's what I would expect long term if you stay with it and go "professional" doing what you stated you want to do. Assuming you stay with DX and that you do buy the 70-300 next:
I would expect the kit lens to go away. I would expect the 40mm gets replaced with a longer/better macro if you're truly doing macro; or that the 40mm turns out to be redundant. I would expect the 70-300 gets replaced by a more capable lens. And for the 50mm to be relegated to the bag (at best) for the very rare occasions it's absolutely needed.
That probably sounds pretty crappy, but it's not really. The lenses you have/are considering are "cost effective" ways of figuring out what will suit you and what your needs really are. But it does come at a cost (what doesn't). If you can figure out what your needs really are before purchasing a lens, then maybe some of the costs can be avoided. And I could be wrong... maybe you'll always love the 40/50.

What does end up in your bag as your primary lenses I can't say... some of that depends on whether you decide to go the bag-of-primes route, and if you decide to be a "natural light only" professional (kind of an oxymoron IMO). I can tell you what I've chosen to use and why, but that doesn't necessarily make them the best choices for you.

 

[ecniv]

Hi

As previously mentioned, the wildlife you will need a longer lens. I have a m42 (plus adaptor) Tair 300 and alough good (the adaptor isn't the best) the reach still wasn't quite what I'd hoped for.

The 50-500 sigma (or the 150-500) is probably easier to use, but before dropping all th e dosh on it, I'd suggest hiring the lens for a long weekend. See how you get on with it, its challenged etc... Same for any other expensive lens.

You got the 40 for macro and its probably very crisp. If you are thinking of details on vehicles or small insects you may need (to try) a 90mm tamron or a 105mm nikkor or possibly 105 or 150mm sigma. Again best to try before you buy if you can. You might also see if there is a meet in your area. If you are lucky there may be other nikon users with lenses to try, see whether you like the use and quality of pics etc.

You mentioned a d3200. Which means the older screw type lenses won't af on your camera. Not a problem as such, just means you will be more like a film photographer.
For wide angle, I liked the 11-16 tokina (manual focus on your camera) although i did try a 14mm samyang in a store and that was nice (also manual). With the 11-16, you can stand around a meter from the car/vehicle and get all of it in frame.

All the lenses I have are in the siggy, so you can see the sort of pics you can get from them. Mainly its use the lenses you've got and practice loads. If you have a longer zoomy lens, see if there is a particular mm you use a lot. Then perhaps look for a more dedicated lens at that or near that mm.

Hope you have a great time shooting things

 

[welshwizard645]

Had a bit of a rethink after reading an earlier post...

You have asked the question along similar lines that was given to Deep Thought in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I came along with a few suggestions, but to answer the question, it depends on the individual and their aspirations. I could look at my huge lens collection and deduce that none (bar one) are essential. The one remaining lens is essential to allow the camera to function, it could be any of them.

If someone made a 42mm lens, that would be a different matter

See how you get on with the 50 mm, you will most probably find a style of photography which calls for a particular type of lens, thus making that lens essential to you.

Good luck with your photography

 

[swamptart]

I had a sigma 85mm 1.4 but stupidly part X'ed it, great lens for portraits and the tokina 80-400mm you can get quite cheap.

 

[big soft moose]

I had a sigma 85mm 1.4 but stupidly part X'ed it, great lens for portraits and the tokina 80-400mm you can get quite cheap.

This is true , but the tokina 80-400 won't AF on a D3200

 

[sk66]

The 50-500 sigma (or the 150-500) is probably easier to use, but before dropping all th e dosh on it, I'd suggest hiring the lens for a long weekend. See how you get on with it, its challenged etc... Same for any other expensive lens.

One thing I don't think any of us mentioned is that the D3200 requires a minimum max aperture of f/5.6 for AF reliability (as do most cameras). I can say from experience that the 11pt AF system struggles above f/5.6 (it's useless at f/8 max).

 

[G.Anderson]

I have a sigma 70-300 its a great lens for not a lot of money much recomended

 

[KingRoach]

Allow me to quote my own reply from the other thread:

Always define your needs/style/what you want to do first, always do that FIRST.

ALWAYS. FIRST. Before you listen to what people think, and DEFINITELY before you listen to what manufacturers think.

YOU. DEFINE. THE NEED.

You're new to this so you will be surprised the amount of people who insist you buy similar things to what they have, or they are convinced what they've bought is the best thing in the world and everybody must think the same, and spend their money in the same place. I think there needs to be a clinical name somewhere deep in psychoanalytical dictionaries for this.

You can experiment a lot with basic kit lenses and get fabulous shots before you can tell which your favourite style is. Macro requires different gear, wide angle creative options is its own thing, journalistic/street is something else, portrait photography, etc. They are all different and can require different gear if you want to advance in any one direction.

A kit lens 18-55, and a cheap tele lens, say 55-200, can be all you need for now. Use them for a year until you can tell where you want to spend your money.

And THEN... you define the budget.
Are you making money out of your photography? Is this spending an investment that is going to pay for itself?
Are you doing it for fun? Just a hobby? How serious do you want to take it?

Define the need first.
Define the budget.

and THEN

You can ask people what options there are for the particular need and budget you have.




This is how everyone should ask about new gear. Dammit.

I feel I'm gonna have to quote this in my signature very soon.

"amateur going into professional" is very, very, oh so very, vague and says nothing. Even professionals specialise in different styles.

I refrain from answering these questions until one defines what KIND of gear they will need, and THEN what kind of budget they are willing to spend. The easiest way to answer is

buy the [insert name of latest most expensive gear here]. It is so great you can never go wrong with it. Since I got it I never looked back *breathing hard from excitement*

to which the only possible response is

duh ¬¬

From what you said you seem to be more interested in the wide end of the spectrum, but doing business professionally can shape what you do depending on the client base you are trying to appeal to. So if you see anything of the sort crystallizing enough for you to make a proper relevant investment, let us know and then we will surely be able to help.

Good luck. ^_^

 

[big soft moose]

the other thing if you are going pro (which i missed in the OP) is that you need a second,prefferably more capable, body - if you get one that has a built in motor this will then wide the choice on lenses (theres also the consideration of whether you intend to go full frame in the future... if you do it makes sense to buy FX lenses as opposed to DX optimised, if you don't then the DX might make more sense on cost grounds)

 

[deductress]

Hi

As previously mentioned, the wildlife you will need a longer lens. I have a m42 (plus adaptor) Tair 300 and alough good (the adaptor isn't the best) the reach still wasn't quite what I'd hoped for.

The 50-500 sigma (or the 150-500) is probably easier to use, but before dropping all th e dosh on it, I'd suggest hiring the lens for a long weekend. See how you get on with it, its challenged etc... Same for any other expensive lens.

You got the 40 for macro and its probably very crisp. If you are thinking of details on vehicles or small insects you may need (to try) a 90mm tamron or a 105mm nikkor or possibly 105 or 150mm sigma. Again best to try before you buy if you can. You might also see if there is a meet in your area. If you are lucky there may be other nikon users with lenses to try, see whether you like the use and quality of pics etc.

You mentioned a d3200. Which means the older screw type lenses won't af on your camera. Not a problem as such, just means you will be more like a film photographer.
For wide angle, I liked the 11-16 tokina (manual focus on your camera) although i did try a 14mm samyang in a store and that was nice (also manual). With the 11-16, you can stand around a meter from the car/vehicle and get all of it in frame.

All the lenses I have are in the siggy, so you can see the sort of pics you can get from them. Mainly its use the lenses you've got and practice loads. If you have a longer zoomy lens, see if there is a particular mm you use a lot. Then perhaps look for a more dedicated lens at that or near that mm.

Hope you have a great time shooting things

Thank you for all the recommendations and advice! =]

 

[deductress]

Had a bit of a rethink after reading an earlier post...

You have asked the question along similar lines that was given to Deep Thought in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I came along with a few suggestions, but to answer the question, it depends on the individual and their aspirations. I could look at my huge lens collection and deduce that none (bar one) are essential. The one remaining lens is essential to allow the camera to function, it could be any of them.

If someone made a 42mm lens, that would be a different matter

See how you get on with the 50 mm, you will most probably find a style of photography which calls for a particular type of lens, thus making that lens essential to you.

Good luck with your photography

Thank you! =]

 

[deductress]

Allow me to quote my own reply from the other thread:



I feel I'm gonna have to quote this in my signature very soon.

"amateur going into professional" is very, very, oh so very, vague and says nothing. Even professionals specialise in different styles.

I refrain from answering these questions until one defines what KIND of gear they will need, and THEN what kind of budget they are willing to spend. The easiest way to answer is



to which the only possible response is

From what you said you seem to be more interested in the wide end of the spectrum, but doing business professionally can shape what you do depending on the client base you are trying to appeal to. So if you see anything of the sort crystallizing enough for you to make a proper relevant investment, let us know and then we will surely be able to help.

Good luck. ^_^

At the moment i've sold prints both in my macro range, and general landscape. However my general landscape was online, my macro prints all from a shop - a garden centre to be specific. XD So it's still kind of hard to tell at this point. On my etsy shop there's a lot of interest in my historical architectures images, yet no buys. Personally i probably enjoy macro work most, but i love taking landscape/architecture images also. I don't think i'm all that interested in portrait (don't have the patience for people) however i bought the 50mm to try and extend my range and my knowledge a bit more. Does that help any, or is it still too vague?

If reference to your other comments - ideally i want to do this as a career, probably not a full-time career (because i'm not keen on delving into portrait work) but certainly part-time. I am serious about it, have been for years. Unfortunately i'm the type of person to run twenty things at once (for instance i'm current at university doing a masters, while attending a side college course in sign language, while working part-time at a shop, while volunteering, while attempting to do my photography) - i think if i were to dedicate more of my time to it, instead of splitting it so, i may have actually progressed a lot further than i have.

I am making money, but not significantly so - just from the purchasing of prints. I'm wanting to expand in that regard but both unsure how to do so, and lacking the time to do so.

Uhhh... I think that was all your questions answered? Hope that all made sense and wasn't me talking irrelevant nonsense - thank you for your advice and comments, i respect honesty and people that can really make me *think* about what i'm wanting in regards to my photography. =]

 

[deductress]

the other thing if you are going pro (which i missed in the OP) is that you need a second,prefferably more capable, body - if you get one that has a built in motor this will then wide the choice on lenses (theres also the consideration of whether you intend to go full frame in the future... if you do it makes sense to buy FX lenses as opposed to DX optimised, if you don't then the DX might make more sense on cost grounds)

Please excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean when you say 'full frame'?

 

[KingRoach]

At the moment i've sold prints both in my macro range, and general landscape. However my general landscape was online, my macro prints all from a shop - a garden centre to be specific. XD So it's still kind of hard to tell at this point. On my etsy shop there's a lot of interest in my historical architectures images, yet no buys. Personally i probably enjoy macro work most, but i love taking landscape/architecture images also. I don't think i'm all that interested in portrait (don't have the patience for people) however i bought the 50mm to try and extend my range and my knowledge a bit more. Does that help any, or is it still too vague?

Of course it helps and makes a lot more sense.

If you're not into portraits, a 50mm is more than you need. You can still do portraits with it, even though a 85mm would be a better, more expensive option.

OR

Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 to do both portraits and MACRO work!

But if you're taking your macro a bit more seriously, I would think the Sigma 150mm f2.8 starts to sound like a very good option. Sharp as a tack and far enough for you to feel more comfortable in your distance from various objects AND being able to let enough light hit your subject.

Canon's L macro lens is as sharp as the Tamron. It gives you less fringing in the highlights that is all. And it's stabilised, but more than double the price.



The wide-angle options vary, but if you're selling prints don't go cheap on your wide lens. They can get very expensive I know, the to be honest the differences between cheap and expensive wide angles isn't noticeable for INTERNET posts or maybe small prints, but if you'r printing large, then chromatic aberrations and sharpness at the edges becomes crucial. The price is dear, nevertheless.

So depending on your camera, you can be looking a very nice Sigma 10-20mm for a crop frame, or a Canon L lens (17-40, 16-35) for a full frame.
Sigma has wider options for a full frame (15-30 and now a mahoosive full frame 12-24!!!!) but these lenses, while cheap for their image circle, do suffer noticeably at the edges.


I'm selling both Macro lenses mentioned above if you're looking to buy something cheaper let me know.

 

[deductress]

Of course it helps and makes a lot more sense.

If you're not into portraits, a 50mm is more than you need. You can still do portraits with it, even though a 85mm would be a better, more expensive option.

OR

Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 to do both portraits and MACRO work!

But if you're taking your macro a bit more seriously, I would think the Sigma 150mm f2.8 starts to sound like a very good option. Sharp as a tack and far enough for you to feel more comfortable in your distance from various objects AND being able to let enough light hit your subject.

Canon's L macro lens is as sharp as the Tamron. It gives you less fringing in the highlights that is all. And it's stabilised, but more than double the price.



The wide-angle options vary, but if you're selling prints don't go cheap on your wide lens. They can get very expensive I know, the to be honest the differences between cheap and expensive wide angles isn't noticeable for INTERNET posts or maybe small prints, but if you'r printing large, then chromatic aberrations and sharpness at the edges becomes crucial. The price is dear, nevertheless.

So depending on your camera, you can be looking a very nice Sigma 10-20mm for a crop frame, or a Canon L lens (17-40, 16-35) for a full frame.
Sigma has wider options for a full frame (15-30 and now a mahoosive full frame 12-24!!!!) but these lenses, while cheap for their image circle, do suffer noticeably at the edges.


I'm selling both Macro lenses mentioned above if you're looking to buy something cheaper let me know.

Thank you!
Both the Tamrom 90mm and the Sigma 150mm sound perfect - i've added both to my wishlist.
And i can't remember if i mentioned it earlier, but i have a Nikon D3200 - so Canon lenses no use, but the sigma and Tamron ones all seemed to have built in motors, so they're perfect!
And out of curiousity what prices are you selling them at then? I might not be able to buy them, as i'm starting back at uni next week so need to save the money, but interested in seeing their prices at second hand.
Thanks again.

 

[big soft moose]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean when you say 'full frame'?

DSLRs come in two main types

Crop sensor (AKA, APS C or DX) ones which are the cheaper models like the D3200, 5200 and 7100 , which have sensors roughly the size of an APS film frame (that is 1.5 crop on nikon or 1.6 crop on canon of a 35mm frame)

and

full frame (or FX) where the sensor is the size of a 35mm film frame (on nikon these are the D610, D750 and D810 in the current line up)

(On canon there are also the 1D series with a 1.3 crop, while a lot of compact system cameras like panasonic etc are "four thirds" with a sensor half the size of a 35mm film frame, plus various medium format bodies which have sensors the size of MF film - but those won't directly concern you if you are staying with nikon)

If you are planning on shooting a lot of portraits there 'might' be benefits to shooting with a FX body - notably a shallow depth of field for a given apperture and a higher MP count (plus the bodies are more high end and may have more pro features like dual card slots) - on the flip side they are more expensive.

I say 'might' because although this is the received wisdom that many will tell you is definitive, the truth is that the ability of the photographer matters a lot more than the type of camera and there are some very gifted shooters doing portraits with crop sensors and indeed with M4/3

 

[sk66]

Tamron 90mm f2.8 1:1 to do both portraits and MACRO work!

But if you're taking your macro a bit more seriously, I would think the Sigma 150mm f2.8 starts to sound like a very good option. Sharp as a tack and far enough for you to feel more comfortable in your distance from various objects AND being able to let enough light hit your subject.

Yeah. If we could go back in time, you could have bought the Tamron 90mm for about the same money you spent on the 40/50 and you would be better suited for your goals/needs.

Personally, I use the Sigma 150/2.8 and I am very happy with it. It costs a lot more, weighs over 2x as much, and has a tripod collar. If you stay with APS I don't know that you actually need that much FL. On the other hand, I've used it with a 2.7x crop camera for extreme macro.

Either doubles as a very nice "portrait" lens, and I would consider either to be long term "professional" purchases. You probably don't need/want both. I would let budget and shooting preference (handheld/tripod) dictate the choice.

IMO, an UWA lens may not suit you/your subjects because they require a different "approach" in order to get good images. If you just use them to capture a huge scene they make everything tiny and boring. IMO, to make good images with them you need to take advantage of their unique capabilities (huge DOF/perspective). If you just need to record a wider FOV, then a stitched image taken with a longer FL will usually produce "better" images.
If you do decide to get an UWA, I have experience with most of the Nikon/Nikon-compatible models. I currently own the Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 16-35... I've owned the 10-20, 11-16, 14-24 as well. They are finicky beasts (filters) and as "specialty tools" they spend more time in my bag than they do being used. The wider they are, the more "issues" they have and the more "specialty" they are (that's why I now use the 16-35 as my primary wide lens).
Again, I would be careful about this purchase... I would suggest that you don't get one until you find that there are shots you can't get with what you have.

 

[deductress]

DSLRs come in two main types

Crop sensor (AKA, APS C or DX) ones which are the cheaper models like the D3200, 5200 and 7100 , which have sensors roughly the size of an APS film frame (that is 1.5 crop on nikon or 1.6 crop on canon of a 35mm frame)

and

full frame (or FX) where the sensor is the size of a 35mm film frame (on nikon these are the D610, D750 and D810 in the current line up)

(On canon there are also the 1D series with a 1.3 crop, while a lot of compact system cameras like panasonic etc are "four thirds" with a sensor half the size of a 35mm film frame, plus various medium format bodies which have sensors the size of MF film - but those won't directly concern you if you are staying with nikon)

If you are planning on shooting a lot of portraits there 'might' be benefits to shooting with a FX body - notably a shallow depth of field for a given apperture and a higher MP count (plus the bodies are more high end and may have more pro features like dual card slots) - on the flip side they are more expensive.

I say 'might' because although this is the received wisdom that many will tell you is definitive, the truth is that the ability of the photographer matters a lot more than the type of camera and there are some very gifted shooters doing portraits with crop sensors and indeed with M4/3

Aaaah okay, i understand. I've heard references to crop sensors and so on but honestly didn't understand the meaning - thank you for explaining that to me.