Confused. TMI

hkaborn2

Senior Member
I've been enjoying my D5500 for a few months now, playing, experimenting and IMHO taking a few decent shots for a relative newbie (I had a film SLR but am new to the DSLR). Anyway, I just returned from a vacation, was reviewing and editing my pix which spanned the entire gamut: party/portrait shots, street pix, landscape, shots taken while hiking in the mountains--you name it.

I am considering picking up a new lens. I currently have the kit lens (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6GII DX) and the AF-S nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6GII DX. My original thought was to get a better telephoto, maybe 18-250mm or 18-300mm, primarily because it was somewhat inconvenient having to change lenses on the fly while walking around. Also thought about getting one with a f/2.8 or f/1.8 aperture to improve low light performance since I enjoy shooting performing musicians in clubs or smaller venues when I can get the camera in. However I then started reading, looking at prices and the like and am now rethinking the whole thing. Maybe I would be better off getting a prime lens, perhaps a 35mm or 50mm with an f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2.8 aperture.

My budget is around $200-300 but I'd be willing to go up to around $500 if necessary to get quality stuff. So what do you think? Should I go with an improved telephoto or a prime lens? If a prime, 35mm, 50mm or something else? Any specific lens suggestions would be appreciated.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
You won't get a walk-around f/2.8 zoom lens for that kind of budget.

You might want to look at the 50/1.8G. Everyone should own a nifty fifty.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I've been enjoying my D5500 for a few months now, playing, experimenting and IMHO taking a few decent shots for a relative newbie (I had a film SLR but am new to the DSLR). Anyway, I just returned from a vacation, was reviewing and editing my pix which spanned the entire gamut: party/portrait shots, street pix, landscape, shots taken while hiking in the mountains--you name it.

I am considering picking up a new lens. I currently have the kit lens (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6GII DX) and the AF-S nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6GII DX. My original thought was to get a better telephoto, maybe 18-250mm or 18-300mm, primarily because it was somewhat inconvenient having to change lenses on the fly while walking around. Also thought about getting one with a f/2.8 or f/1.8 aperture to improve low light performance since I enjoy shooting performing musicians in clubs or smaller venues when I can get the camera in. However I then started reading, looking at prices and the like and am now rethinking the whole thing. Maybe I would be better off getting a prime lens, perhaps a 35mm or 50mm with an f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2.8 aperture.

My budget is around $200-300 but I'd be willing to go up to around $500 if necessary to get quality stuff. So what do you think? Should I go with an improved telephoto or a prime lens? If a prime, 35mm, 50mm or something else? Any specific lens suggestions would be appreciated.
I'd suggest you get a Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR for your daily, walkabout lens. Bought new, it's a $500 lens. The other lens I would suggest would be a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G which I prefer over the 50mm f/1.8G when used on a DX body but that's a Ford vs. Chevy sort of thing; either one, really would serve you well. Either lens will set you back around $200 bought new.

When it comes to quality glass (especially zoom lenses) I would advise you to be prepared to spend $500, and upward of that, rather easily. Half-way decent glass is expensive. REALLY GOOD glass is really expensive and really good, really fast glass (f/2.8 et al) is cringe-inducing expensive. Problem is, once you've tasted really good, really fast glass, there's no going back.
.....
 
Last edited:

hkaborn2

Senior Member
You won't get a walk-around f/2.8 zoom lens for that kind of budget.

You might want to look at the 50/1.8G. Everyone should own a nifty fifty.

Thanks. My camera is a DX so the 50mm is the equivalent of a 75mm, right? If so am I better off with the 50 or a 35mm in your opinion?
 

SteveL54

Senior Member
18-140 and 35mm is an excellent choice for a daily lens. I use it 18-140 75% of the time, and the 35mm the other 25%.
I have the 55-200, but rarely use it anymore. Just not happy with it. I gave it to Goodwill, and the next day, I found it back on my doorstep.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Thanks. My camera is a DX so the 50mm is the equivalent of a 75mm, right?
The field of view will be the same on your DX body with a 50mm lens as that of an FX body with a 75mm lens, yes.

If so am I better off with the 50 or a 35mm in your opinion?
It's not so much a matter of what's better, really, I just find the 35mm focal length is a little more flexible than the 50mm on a DX body. When using a prime lens you're going to be "zooming with your feet" as we say and the difference between 35mm and 50mm is only a few steps. If I need to however, I can crop a 35mm image to match that of the 50mm but I can't widen a 50mm image to match that of the 35mm. Seriously though, they're both excellent lenses and you couldn't go wrong with either one.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Thanks. My camera is a DX so the 50mm is the equivalent of a 75mm, right? If so am I better off with the 50 or a 35mm in your opinion?

That's the "Ford vs Chevy" part of the answer ... there is no right or wrong, only what works for you. You provided such a mix of subjects, that doesn't help narrow things down much either. I like the 35mm f/1.8G on the DX body more, since it's very close to the nifty fifty view that Sparky mentioned. I also have the 50mm f/1.8G, but I don't find myself using it on a DX body near as much. I also have a wider 20mm prime, but that guy won't auto-focus on the D5500 as I recall (I also have a D5300, which doesn't AF the older 'D' lenses).
 

hkaborn2

Senior Member
Thanks. Sorry about my mix of subjects but I like them all. At this point in my evolution I'm thinking general usage equipment. So in that vein, any reason why I should be hesitant to buy FX format lenses (that will work on my D5500) in case I at some point get a new FX format camera body?
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Thanks. Sorry about my mix of subjects but I like them all. At this point in my evolution I'm thinking general usage equipment. So in that vein, any reason why I should be hesitant to buy FX format lenses (that will work on my D5500) in case I at some point get a new FX format camera body?

It's a two-edged sword. On one hand, it could be said you shouldn't bother paying for FX glass unless you plan on eventually buying an FX body. On the other hand, you're using the 'best part' of FX glass on a DX body... that being the center which tends to be sharpest.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Thanks. Sorry about my mix of subjects but I like them all. At this point in my evolution I'm thinking general usage equipment. So in that vein, any reason why I should be hesitant to buy FX format lenses (that will work on my D5500) in case I at some point get a new FX format camera body?
Not that I can think of. FX glass is significantly more expensive of course, but if you DO get a full-frame body at some point you are definitely going to want full-frame glass to put on it, believe you me... Been there, done that.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Thanks. Sorry about my mix of subjects but I like them all. At this point in my evolution I'm thinking general usage equipment. So in that vein, any reason why I should be hesitant to buy FX format lenses (that will work on my D5500) in case I at some point get a new FX format camera body?

No need to apologize on the mix of subjects! It makes it a tougher decision for you when selecting/prioritizing gear, unless you stay generalized in your selections.

As one who's been acquiring FX glass with my DX body with the expectation that I'll end up shooting FX at some point, I'm not the best at discouraging the practice. That said, the two cons that come to mind are cost and weight. Because FX glass needs to project a larger image to the sensor, the lens is typically heavier and costs more because of the materials used. The DX optimized lenses can take advantage of the smaller sensor/image, and so will often times end up being a more compact design that both weighs less and costs less.
 
Thanks. My camera is a DX so the 50mm is the equivalent of a 75mm, right? If so am I better off with the 50 or a 35mm in your opinion?


I shoot a DX camera and I thought long and hard on the 35mm vs 50mm issue. I went with the 35mm and I am glad I did. Sometimes the 35mm even is not wide enough to do what I need it to. Better to wide than not wide enough. You can always crop but it is impossible to add more once you have shot the photo
 
18-140 and 35mm is an excellent choice for a daily lens. I use it 18-140 75% of the time, and the 35mm the other 25%.
I have the 55-200, but rarely use it anymore. Just not happy with it. I gave it to Goodwill, and the next day, I found it back on my doorstep.

I had the same combination of the 18-140 and the 35mm with my D7100 and the 18-140 was on my camera most of the time. It is a great lens. You can get a refurbished lens with a full year warranty that is great. I have bought refurbished lenses and cameras from these guys several times and have never had a problem

Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX ED AF-S Nikkor-Zoom Lens - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty $259.00

The only reason I no longer shoot it is that I bought a AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR which is a FX lens. I will eventually move to a Full Frame camera so I am slowly replacing all my glass with FX lenses.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I bought the 50mm for my DX and loved it, but I intended to go FX all along, so I bought the FX version. But my DX camera had a focus motor built in so af-d glass worked out very well on my DX, so I was ready when I finally moved to FX Nikon body! :)
But now I am moving to better glass, and that is very expensive! The lens I may be getting cost $1400.00! Yikes!!!
 
I bought the 50mm for my DX and loved it, but I intended to go FX all along, so I bought the FX version. But my DX camera had a focus motor built in so af-d glass worked out very well on my DX, so I was ready when I finally moved to FX Nikon body! :)
But now I am moving to better glass, and that is very expensive! The lens I may be getting cost $1400.00! Yikes!!!


The AF-S NIKKOR 24–120mm f/4G ED VR normally runs around $1,100. I was lucky and found a white box lens for a really good price. White box means they broke up a kit and are selling the body and lens separately.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
The lens I will likely be buying is the Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f2.8.


The AF-S NIKKOR 24–120mm f/4G ED VR normally runs around $1,100. I was lucky and found a white box lens for a really good price. White box means they broke up a kit and are selling the body and lens separately.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
The AF-S NIKKOR 24–120mm f/4G ED VR normally runs around $1,100. I was lucky and found a white box lens for a really good price. White box means they broke up a kit and are selling the body and lens separately.

$1100 US? I paid 800 for my used one, and if I tried to sell it, I'd be lucky to get 600.
 
Top