Differing focal lengths confer different qualities to a scene. Lens are about much more than mere magnification, however. Old hands know that the most interesting photos often happen when you're close to and interacting with your subject, and can frame to simplify and direct the composition to deliver the story you are trying to tell. In most cases new users will gravitate towards greater magnification and therefore longer focal length zooms, often because their style of photography keeps them at a fairly far distance from their subjects (the "spy photographer" syndrome). This is one of the reasons for a wider range zoom than the 18-55 you now own. The problem is, unless you've actually tried one of those add on lenses, it's hard to conceptualize what they can do for you. Lenses should always be purchased to address a need rather than some abstract concept of a "full kit". I'd recommend reading DPR's lens buying guide If you buy a lens that excels in one area you are more likely to get "great" shots of that type. The lenses in #1 above are all meant to be "good" at everything but great at nothing. A landscape shot at 12mm cannot be replicated (easily) with an 18-105, etc. A portrait at 50mm or 85mm shot at f/2 with a prime for shallow depth of field cannot be replicated with the 18-140. Here's some examples: a wildlife shot at 300mm with the 70-300 cannot be duplicated with a 18-55 or even a 18-140. No pixel peeping at 100% to see if the corners or edges are sharper in pic than the other. Or if you go #2, you can get a lens that gives you a completely different picture than anything you can do right now. If you go the route of #1, you can get an 18-105 or 16-85 or whatever and get an incremental improvement in the same shots you are already taking (and IMO the incremental improvement is relatively small). 18-105, 18-140, 16-85, 17-70 Sig, etc.Ģ) buy a lens that fills a need or performs a function you can't currently achieve. I would look at it like this, there are two basic strategies:ġ) buy another "one size fits all" type of lens. I understand the feeling of getting a new DSLR and wanting to right away buy a better lens, no doubt. It sounds like you're relatively new to DSLR photography, so my response is geared as such. Do you always want wider, or is 55 not long enough? Once you know those things that helps narrow down what lens to go with. You might want to shoot a bit with your 18-55 just to figure out where your shots are landing. Today I don't think I'd get the 35 since I have the faster normal zoom, but the 40mm macro might be tempting. The 35 feels like it is built much better but it's just a 35. That's a FX lens so bigger and heavier than the 55-200 but the 55-200 isn't terribly different from the 18-55 in terms of build quality. I like the suggestion someone else had about the 70-300. And now that I have one and a SB-700 I don't really need the 35. Now the 35's on the chopping block because I'm starting to agree with toomanycanons that I'm better off with a faster zoom.
![osx 10.5 osx 10.5](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ipod/images/6/6d/2009-11_Mac_OS_X_10.6.8_(Snow_Leopard).png)
However, I didn't do that until I already had the 55-200 and the 35 (and a fisheye and a lensbaby. I considered the Nikon 16-85 as a replacement before ultimately going with the Sigma 17-70. Uh, if it creeks don't grip it that hard! Yes, the 18-55 is rather flimsy. You could then augment one of these lenses with one of the longer tele options later on, but if you are happy with the kit 18-55 you could just go for a tele option now.įor a tele lens I would look at the 55-300vr as a lower cost option or the more expensive (and better quality) Tamron 70-300vc USD.
![osx 10.5 osx 10.5](https://evermb772.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/4/8/124899294/362424414.png)
If you don't feel you need the 24mm equivalent wide angle of the 16-85vr, the 18-105vr makes a very good all purpose lens and for a bit less $$. I primarily use the 16-85vr, it is a fantastic lens for landscapes and a general 'walk around' photography.
![osx 10.5 osx 10.5](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ipod/images/8/89/2007-9_Mac_OS_X_10.5.8_(Leopard)_(PPC).png)
Any good recommendations? Thanks!įor the best all purpose lens get the 18-105vrįor the best all purpose landscapes/nature lens get the 16-85 vrįor a good all purpose travel/superzoom lens get the 18-200vr. I take a lot of different photography (product shots, portraits, nature, etc.), pretty much whatever the day brings. My budget probably won't go beyond $400-$500, so anything under that is preferable. It works fine though, but now I'm looking to save up for some actual glass to use with it. The kit lens feels pretty cheap though, I've actually heard it creak a few times when I gripped it while shooting. I also picked up a good bag for it and a 16GB Class 10 card, so I'm set there. So as the title suggests I just purchased my first DSLR, a Nikon D3200 with 18-55 kit lens.