New lens - don't know what I need

[Crusoe]

Had my D90 for several years now and still doing a fine job. I have two lenses just now my cheap 400 prime for distance shots on sunny days (serves a purpose but needs a lot of light) and my general use on Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED which is great as a multipurpose lens http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-135.htm know it well and I can work around it's failings quite easily to get the shot I want as long as there is a reasonable amount of light.

Time for another lens but not sure what I should get (or should I just upgrade the body, higher iso performance would make a difference)

Was thinking of a small prime to allow shooting in low light which I can't really do without the flash just now. 35mm prime seems the best option but open to thoughts from others, would be used for landscapes, indoors and I might try some night sky photos (would the 50mm prime be better suited?)

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/76070...

Or should I get a small zoom, something like the NIKON AF 18-35 mm 1:3.5-4.5 D ED LENS - NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D would be in budget second hand
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NIKON-AF-18-35-mm-1-3-5-...
Short focus length might be good for macro too as well as landscape and should let in more light than my current zoom, not sure about the focal length multiplier (full frame vs what my d90 will show so make it more like a 35-70mm?)

Should I go for a better all round lens that I would get a lot more use out of, and sell my existing one, Nikon AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR lens for example seem to go quite cheaply second hand and then add a small prime too?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-55-200MM-VR-DX-Len...

[GravelBen]

I think the answer you need first is what you most want to do with the new lens... that will help with the decision.

[Crusoe]

Best way to improve quality over my d90 with 18-135mm combination for £200 or so. Looks like I could get a 7100 body for that or with a bit of budget creep a second hand D300 which sounds like it might be the better upgrade if I like what I have but just want it a bit better? Main downside of the D90 is low light performance, some nice prime lenses would compensate for that or a better sensor...

[GravelBen]

The D7100 will be miles ahead of the D80 (and probably the D300) in low light, I know it was a huge improvement when I went from D80 to D7000.

I have a 50mm f1.8D (among other lenses) and would probably go for 35mm or wider if I was choosing a fast handy prime now - 50mm is just a bit long for me on a DX camera, though it is handy being able to reverse mount it with a $10 adaptor for macro use.

[MysteryLemon]

I would recommend the 35mm f1.8 for anyone regardless of what you intend to use the camera for. It's a great lens and cheap enough that you can't really go wrong with it.

The 50mm (either D or G) is a cracking lens but bordering on portrait lens once attached to a DX camera. THe 35mm is much more suited to the format and gives a much more useful focal length.

[steveatesh]

MysteryLemon said:

I would recommend the 35mm f1.8 for anyone regardless of what you intend to use the camera for. It's a great lens and cheap enough that you can't really go wrong with it.

The 50mm (either D or G) is a cracking lens but bordering on portrait lens once attached to a DX camera. THe 35mm is much more suited to the format and gives a much more useful focal length.

Very opportune post, I am pondering both these lenses for use as a portrait lens, I have an 18-140mm Nikon general purpose lens which lives on the camera. Which of the two lenses is most suitable for portraits please, camera is a D5100.

[Simpo Two]

steveatesh said:

Very opportune post, I am pondering both these lenses for use as a portrait lens, I have an 18-140mm Nikon general purpose lens which lives on the camera. Which of the two lenses is most suitable for portraits please, camera is a D5100.

The 50mm. Macro lenses can also make good portrait lenses and then you get two jobs in one.

[andy-xr]

steveatesh said:

Very opportune post, I am pondering both these lenses for use as a portrait lens, I have an 18-140mm Nikon general purpose lens which lives on the camera. Which of the two lenses is most suitable for portraits please, camera is a D5100.

The 18-140 will still do it. For headshots you'd need to be somewhere upwards of 85mm to somewhere around 135mm (you've got that) and for general portraits, anywhere between 35 and 50mm (you've also got that)

Unless you really want to shoot portraits at 1.8, you've already got the focal lengths you need. The question is, is it any good.

I used to use an 85mm 1.8 or an 80-200 or a 28-300 for general portraity things, depending on how close, how much room I had to work with, whether it was a tight cropped in headshot etc

The 35mm 1.8 is a great lens, the Mrs has it on her camera all the time and gives her the exact field of view she wants for the things she takes photos of (fairly generic stuff). I like it, but prefer to be in a bit closer, so tend to use an 18-50 Sigma 2.8 for walkabout and the 80-200 for anything that needs a bit of zoom, both bodies are DX

The thing with portraiture, and I guess you could apply to any photography really, is you really need to shape the light to make it look good. If you're thinking of using whatever light's available at the time, you might need F/2 to get where you need to be. You might need a reflector. You might need flash. The focal length of the lens isnt as significant as how you light up the scene to get it how you want it

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 21st July 09:14

[Crusoe]

Worth paying the extra for the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/ 1.4G over the 1.8 (seems to be about £80 more)

edit: Looks like the cheaper one gets the nod from someone using both.
https://photographylife.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-vs-f1...

Edited by Crusoe on Tuesday 21st July 12:38

[alock]

steveatesh said:

MysteryLemon said:

I would recommend the 35mm f1.8 for anyone regardless of what you intend to use the camera for. It's a great lens and cheap enough that you can't really go wrong with it.

The 50mm (either D or G) is a cracking lens but bordering on portrait lens once attached to a DX camera. THe 35mm is much more suited to the format and gives a much more useful focal length.

Very opportune post, I am pondering both these lenses for use as a portrait lens, I have an 18-140mm Nikon general purpose lens which lives on the camera. Which of the two lenses is most suitable for portraits please, camera is a D5100.

Have you tried analysing your existing photographs to see the most common focal lengths for your favourite photos?

This a plot of my photos taken during 2014+2015. It's a plot of the number of photos I've chosen to keep against the equivalent focal length in 35mm format.



The peaks are at 27mm, 52mm & 127mm which on my DX camera correspond to the 18mm wide end of my kit lens, my 35mm 1.8g and my 85mm 1.8g.

If you asked me, I would say I use my 35mm for 80% of my pictures but as this graph shows I actually use my 85mm for almost 3 times as many pictures.

[K12beano]

Crusoe said:

Worth paying the extra for the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/ 1.4G over the 1.8 (seems to be about £80 more)

Is it?



Well I am sure for some people that might be true, and don't get me wrong - I have and am often using f/1.4 variants of the 50mm and 85mm D lenses. Love 'em to every last blurry pixel.

Personally, I'd turn down an AF-S G lens if you were giving it to me for free let alone an £80 premium.

It's a G: no aperture ring (much more intuitive to set up and use quickly for street and portrait)(no good for some extension tubes if you want the occasional macro
It's an AF-S: fair enough if you've a body without an AF motor, but any extra weight will not be rewarded with faster or more accurate AF. The D lens has very little glass to move (even if the f1.4 over the f/1.8) anyway
It's f1.4: fine if you are really going to wring every last photon out of something, but unless you're going to be slow and methodical, going to carefully fine-tune your AF and/or going to use tripod and live view for accuracy) you'll probably be frustrated about how carefully you'll be with the plane of focus and limited dof and be closing down to f/2!
It's f1.4: but not optically any "better" than the f/1.8, it just has to be made of bigger and more expensive bits of glass, and has a corresponding size and weight premium.

No - on balance it's probably a great choice, but even so it may be a compromise.... So, I'm not just being deliberately contrary, Crusoe, but it does depend a lot on what you're doing with it.

Personally, my 50mm D came secondhand from someone on Nikon Owner forum, with a tacky rubber lens hood and it'd be the one I wouldn't part with. But it's not for everyone.

[Crusoe]

As is usual with such topics you realize you need to spend a lot more money thanks for the input all.

Looks like I am saving up for a 7200 body, the big jump in sensor performance should solve any low light issues.

Short term I'll see if I can get a nice 18-200 and sell my 18-135 if I like it. I do use the zoom a lot and often crop them a bit at 135 so the zoom should be better with VR and should still be fine for shorter distances and then pick up a 35mm 1.8 if I need it.

[steveatesh]

andy-xr said:

The 18-140 will still do it. For headshots you'd need to be somewhere upwards of 85mm to somewhere around 135mm (you've got that) and for general portraits, anywhere between 35 and 50mm (you've also got that)

Unless you really want to shoot portraits at 1.8, you've already got the focal lengths you need. The question is, is it any good. ......

The thing with portraiture, and I guess you could apply to any photography really, is you really need to shape the light to make it look good. If you're thinking of using whatever light's available at the time, you might need F/2 to get where you need to be. You might need a reflector. You might need flash. The focal length of the lens isnt as significant as how you light up the scene to get it how you want it

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 21st July 09:14

Good advice thanks. I've used the 18 - 140 mainly for shooting "things" and landscapes and have found it to be very sharp in the centre, especially around 70 - 100mm (approx) , At aperture 8.

I have a shoot lined up with a couple young women who want to update their portfolio for Drama School, and my intention is to do it on a sunny evening, going into the Golden Hour and eventually some silhouettes against the sunset. I have a trusty friend lined up to hold a reflector, rest will be natural light. I don't know how it will fair at 5.6 but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[andy-xr]

steveatesh said:

Good advice thanks. I've used the 18 - 140 mainly for shooting "things" and landscapes and have found it to be very sharp in the centre, especially around 70 - 100mm (approx) , At aperture 8.

I have a shoot lined up with a couple young women who want to update their portfolio for Drama School, and my intention is to do it on a sunny evening, going into the Golden Hour and eventually some silhouettes against the sunset. I have a trusty friend lined up to hold a reflector, rest will be natural light. I don't know how it will fair at 5.6 but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Check out the photo at 0:50 in this, the rest is worth watching as well, and whether silhouettes would be the right call for a portfolio (they could be, I dont know)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K36unQrQ4yI

[steveatesh]

andy-xr said:

Check out the photo at 0:50 in this, the rest is worth watching as well, and whether silhouettes would be the right call for a portfolio (they could be, I dont know)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K36unQrQ4yI

Wow, something to aspire to, thanks for the link.

[wack]

It's all about the lenses, a 10x zoom sounds great in principal , every lens you'll ever need in one lens

Look at sports photographers with those massive £6000 lenses, why do they need them, because it's all about the quality of the glass that provides the image for the sensor

A D90 looking through a prime lens will produce a better picture than a D4 looking through a £50 sigma

My advice is keep the D90 and upgrade your lens , primes if possible , if not 2.8 zooms , if you want a long zoom the 70-300VR is a much better lens than the shorter version

[Crusoe]

bit like a what car question so thought I would reply with the outcome.

Picked up a 900 shutter count D7100 for a good price so thought I might as well. I've also picked up a 18-200 nikkor zoom which I now need to reconfigure my brain for (seems mad to be able to shoot at 200mm 1/25th sec and it be in perfect focus hand held.

I've also got a 100mm 2.8 prime on its way (dentist brother changed his camera to a canon for taking photos of peoples teeth, thanks bro) and I will pick up a 35mm 1.8 prime too at some stage soon.

Sell my D90 and 18-135 and I'll only be a few hundred out of pocket for the upgrade though in many ways the D90 was easier and more intuitive to get a good shot out of, new one will need more practice.

[gck303]

K12beano said:

It's f1.4: but not optically any "better" than the f/1.8, it just has to be made of bigger and more expensive bits of glass, and has a corresponding size and weight premium.

If fact the opposite is true...

You should not have a faster lens than you need. When you increase the maximum aperture you will genrally increase the number of pieces of glass in the lens. As a result the image will be poorer. Have a read about the five different types of optical aberrations to understand a little more.

However, it will be easier to focus with a larger maximum aperture as the image will be brighter.

Incidentally, most lenses provide their best optical performance around f8...