Nikon lense recommendation

I use AV mode and adjust the ISO accordingly. I'll admit there's still a lot I can learn but so far for what I do, Im pretty satisfied. I would like to get better and get into editing.

 

Been spending the day reading Ken Rockwell's site and he disagrees.

The human brain "remembers" facial proportions from a distance of 15ft.
Closer, proportions change... noses get larger and ears smaller.

He actually recommends much longer lenses for portrait work. A 105 being good if you want a model standing upright, but for headshots, something longer is needed to maintain that 15ft and have the head or upper torso properly fill the frame.

But for general low-light POV shots, agreed... the 50mm prime is ideal.

 

True...However for the price of $134, it can't be beat

 

Adorama... 55-200mm refurbished (by Nikon) for $165
Likely similar deals for Canon glass.

 

I'm not saying to completely disregard Rockwell but as you look closely at his site you will see many points he completely back tracks on as well as seems to go from one extreme to another ie..."this is the best product on the face of the planet" to "utterly worthless"
That said, I still reference his site on things, but just balance him in a healthy way with many other reviews and sites. Not hating on him, Just a heads up as to what I've found.

I have the 55-200 and like it well enough. I use my 35 1.8 the most. I tried the 35 and the 50 and decided I liked the wider angle of view better (on a crop sensor its the equivalent to a 52.5mm anyway) so I'd say to try both before you pick up a Prime lens as I was "set" on getting the 50 until I shot both.

EDIT: Also check out B&H and Amazon. Usually pretty close in prices to Adorama but sometimes one will have something in stock that the others don't.

 

Especially in something as "artful" as photography, the only thing absolute is there are no absolutes.
Absolutely

Like I agree with his attitude of "Travel light", but after my last 100 wasted shots from Carlsbad Caverns, I am not going back in there, even with a nice DSLR, without a tripod

I think I'm pretty much set with the kit lens (18-55) and the 55-200.
I briefly considered the 55-300, and would love to replace them both with the 18-200, but I can't justify the cost.

Digging through the spare closet, I found my old Canon T60 rig, and what did I have? The kit lens, 35-70, a 75-200 zoom, and a 2x doubler.
Now, with the crop sensor, the 55-200 is going to be more like a 75-300, and I'm not shooting airshows anymore, so I really don't see needing anything longer than 200mm.

Ya... eventually I'll probably give in and buy a fisheye (and use it 4 times), and I'm sure at some point, the acquisition syndrome will kick in and I'll end up with the 18-200.

But I picked up a moderately inexpensive ($52) Sunpak tripod with a pistol grip quick-release head. No fiddling with knobs for adjustment... squeeze the trigger and it free-floats on all 3 axes, head has a round level, as well as separate tube levels for each axis.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sunpak+...18246670488&skuId=1205204&st=tripod&cp=1&lp=5

Also picked up a bag. Nikon sucks. $10 more for a smaller bag than Canon. I bought the Canon bag and then pried the Canon badge off of the flap.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+DSLR+Gadget+Bag+-+Black/6813362.p?id=1091101643348&skuId=6813362
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Nikon+-+Digital+SLR+Camera+Bag/1227579.p?id=1218238315290&skuId=1227579

Go figure.

The bag is actually a hair bigger than needed. I've got the body and lens in one end and the flash on the other end. Plenty of room for the new lens, and still enough room for two more items almost as large as the flash (this Sigma 610 is a beast!).

I keep forgetting that I no longer need room in the bag for film cans!

 

I know I'm not a photography guru but I have a Nikon D3100 and an 18-55mm and 55-300mm and they are great for me!

 

That's the camera that I just picked up to replace my pathetic Coolpix L810.
My older S550 was a much better camera than the 810. Only thing better about the 810 is the glass. The auto focus and color balance are horrible, the flash must have a guide number of about 2, maybe 3 if it's used in a white room.
55-300 is a sweet lens, but I no longer need anything that long.
Now, once I retire and move to Texas, I might want something in that range for shooting wildlife.

 

wait a minute....my Nikon can shoot things?

I have to 55-300mm because my mom gave it to me for free and I actually use it a good bit for wildlife or photos of sports

 

Because no one else has said it.....










Canon.

 

OP has a D80 (even though it's a necrothread).

And Canon was mentioned at the TOTP
And I mentioned my Canon T60

Good gear... if you want to shoot video through a DSLR, Canon is the way to go.
Act of Valor was shot on a (okay, a number of) Canon 5D.

 

Meh, both fine cameras. Mostly preference on subject and taste. I bet if you took pics with equal class bodies and lenses and didn't edit or blow them up we'd have a hard time declaring what "brand" the photos were.

 

Quite true.

Back when 2mp was a high end camera and most cameras were "kilopixel", there was a HUGE difference in color balance between brands.
Couple that with Sony and Olympus using proprietary memory card formats, Kodak storing images in it's proprietary .FPX format (and the buggy, bloatware needed to view)....

I don't miss those days.

 

Sorry for the late response! Didn't know this thread was still alive!

I love my fisheye, and I use it whenever I need a wide angle. It helps A LOT to have the rectilinear correction plugin, because then it doesn't look so "fisheye-y" but gives you the angle you need. That particular photo was an HDR stack of 5 images using Photomatix 4.0 Pro. I don't use any filters on the fisheye for the exact reason you mentioned.

For those of you saying the Fisheye is just a novelty lens...that is "somewhat" true. But a good photographer can line up any shot with it. Here's some examples of shots I did with that lens that does not necessarily warrant a fisheye, yet it performed flawlessly.

 

Rich,

Unbelievable composition with an FE! Very nice shots.
Thanks for sharing.

JohnB

 

Those aren't mine... they're Matt's.

 

I need a wide lens before my trip this Summer. I'm thinking about just nabbing the 10-24 and selling the kit 18-55 for now. We'll see.

 

trveler: wow, very nice! i think my next lens is going to be the tokina 11-16 f2.8. always wanted an dedicated fisheye lens (not the cheap add on), but dont know if im willing to justify the cost at this point and time. i think the ultra wide would be the medium for now.

as for lenses, i was on ebay this weekend and picked a couple lenses to tinker around with after reading reviews on them. first is the nikon 105 f2.5. this is a retro lens but i read that this lens is highly sought after for its dreamy bokeh. and second lens i picked up was a rokinon 85 f1.4 (chipped version). this lens produced excellent results and came out on top versus the other lenses in its class.

 

Ultra Wide lenses are awesome. I want to get an 11-16 f/2.8 as well.

 

Do it. I'm a Canon boy, but I have a 10-22 on my 60D, and it is so much fun. Depends on what you want to do with it. Just realize that at 10mm you might be getting your feet or tripod if you use one in the shot.