Advice on lenses for beginner DSLR user (To be)

[TechGuy10]

Hey all,

I'm a student looking to get into DSLR photography. I am looking at a D3300 from Nikon as being a good starting option in terms of bodies. Where I need the advice is lenses, I do not believe the standard kit lens will be sufficient for me and I would like a more versatile lens eg. 18-140mm lens or Sigma 18-200mm, as I like photographing landscapes and travel photography. If you have some suggestions for a different/better value body, I'm all ears.

 

[ShadowCaptain]

Hey all,

I'm a student looking to get into DSLR photography. I am looking at a D3300 from Nikon as being a good starting option in terms of bodies. Where I need the advice is lenses, I do not believe the standard kit lens will be sufficient for me and I would like a more versatile lens eg. 18-140mm lens or Sigma 18-200mm, as I like photographing landscapes and travel photography. If you have some suggestions for a different/better value body, I'm all ears.

 

the D3300 is a decent camera, my old travel lens was a sigma 18-200 lens, it did a decent job covering all ranges from wide to telephoto

 

bear in mind superzooms generally do not resolve much detail and image quality will be lower than primes and better lenses,

[ZetZet]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm-vr.htm

Pretty expensive, but man that range.

[MrSuperb]

Hey all,

I'm a student looking to get into DSLR photography. I am looking at a D3300 from Nikon as being a good starting option in terms of bodies. Where I need the advice is lenses, I do not believe the standard kit lens will be sufficient for me and I would like a more versatile lens eg. 18-140mm lens or Sigma 18-200mm, as I like photographing landscapes and travel photography. If you have some suggestions for a different/better value body, I'm all ears.

get the standard kit lens. It is a decent start. Don't get any of those super zooms.

and don't read that scumbag rockwell. EVER.

[lani100]

I would say a 18-200 is a good lens for allround use but a 50mm is alwasy nice to have as a secon lens.

[ZetZet]

and don't read that scumbag rockwell. EVER.

he might be a dick, but he is the only lens reviewer i remember off the top of my head.  :lol:

[Ruostunut kokis]

Nikon D3300 is a fine choice for a starting photographer. But I'd say kit lens can be sufficient enough. Landscape photos aren't usually too much in telephoto range anyway, and if the focal length isn't enough you can crop the images in-post if necessary (don't know if it's also possible to crop in-camera, but if it is, that's great. I don't have much knowledge about Nikon's DSLRs). I'm not trying to say superzooms aren't necessary (as they can be quite handy in-fact, especially for travelers) , but if you get a kit lens with the body, I'd say keep it. They're not bad, they're just a little cheap.

 

get the standard kit lens. It is a decent start. Don't get any of those super zooms.
and don't read that scumbag rockwell. EVER.

Why no superzooms? Yes, they produce significantly lower quality images than better zooms or primes (or even the kit lenses), but superzooms are meant to be versatile enough to be an ideal one-lens-setup for example to travelers. Superzooms are fine in terms of image quality, but for example in studio work you want to avoid them in favor of better lenses.

[OLYCAT]

I'd look at getting a Nikon 18-300mm lens, its the same spec as the 18-200mm just a slightly longer focal length and not much more money. With that I'd also look at having a couple of fast prime lenses, maybe a 1.8 35mm (drop to the f2 version to save some cash) and a 1.4 85mm.

 

The 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye is quite fun too.

 

 

If looking at Sigma, try the Nikon fit 17-50mm f2.8, still relatively fast and a fairly good range for landscapes / city scapes, decent optics and at a good price.

[MrSuperb]

Why no superzooms?

cause:

Yes, they produce significantly lower quality images than better zooms or primes (or even the kit lenses)

They are good at nothing, other than getting 'all' the focal lenghts in one lens.

They are expensive for what they are.

If you aren't interest in changing ur lens, then you probably shouldn't buy a DSLR in the first place.

I'd say start with the 18-55. You can have plenty of fun with that lens.

When you have shot enough pictures and you know what focal lengts you prefer, you can look into other lenses.

Just use you feet as 'zoom'.

[Ruostunut kokis]

cause:

They are good at nothing, other than getting 'all' the focal lenghts in one lens.

They are expensive for what they are.

If you aren't interest in changing ur lens, then you probably shouldn't buy a DSLR in the first place.

I'd say start with the 18-55. You can have plenty of fun with that lens.

When you have shot enough pictures and you know what focal lengts you prefer, you can look into other lenses.

Just use you feet as 'zoom'.

A lot of superzoms are actually affordable, and not much more expensive than a kit lens as new (sure, second-hand ones go for like 40 - 80€... But talking about brand new ones), you don't see the loss in detail unless you crop the images or print a large poster out of it. They're not THAT bad (but they do tend to disorient things at certain focal lengths), you can still get significantly better quality images with superzooms on DSLRs than on high-end phone cameras (and today's phone cameras aren't quite exactly potatoes anymore).

 

Not everywhere you can walk closer to bring the subject closer, though cropping helps with this, there'll be less image quality loss with zooming optically than digitally. And about changing lenses... For travel photography carrying a bag filled with lenses isn't the best idea unless you're either an enthusiast or a professional photographer. Even carrying a bag just for one or two more lenses brings sometimes unnecessary weight and bulk, and for a traveler than can mean a lot. That's why a lot of photographers who are on the move a lot choose to stick with one, usually a good all-around lens so that their camera gear doesn't need to be bigger than pretty much just the camera itself. And what if you'd be changing from say for example a kit lens to a telephoto lens, but there's a moment you want to capture, when you are changing lenses, you loose sometimes precious time and can miss it entirely.

 

But despite all that, I do recommend OP starting with the kit lens.

[Bsmith]

i would personally start out with a good prime lens(+/- 55mm) and a superzoom next to it, the prime gives good image quality and if it has a wider angle allows good scenery shots, while the superzoom can be used for more close up pictures form stuff like animals(or whatever you are going to use your dslr for) altough the kit lens is never a bad choice to have when you just start out, they aren't the best, but they safe can you ALOT compared to buying an additional lens.

[KirbyTech]

kit lens and then a 55-250 or 70-300 as those are great starter lenses. I have both for Canon and like them for the price.

[TechGuy10]

Wow! I'm overwhelmed by the responses. My next dilemma is whether I go for the slightly more expensive D5300 w/ it's kit lens or the 18-140 mm kit lens that you can get with it?

[ShadowCaptain]

Wow! I'm overwhelmed by the responses. My next dilemma is whether I go for the slightly more expensive D5300 w/ it's kit lens or the 18-140 mm kit lens that you can get with it?

 

hmm probably not a bad idea for a starter, the 18-140 is not the best lens but as a beginner its not the worst start you could make

 

depends how much you want to spend on glass really, camera aside the lens is THE most important part of the camera for resolving detail

[rmac52]

What ever you get make sure you get the 35mm 1.8g.  Its a great all around lens and almost never leaves my camera.  Its a fantastic travel lens.  

[TechGuy10]

hmm probably not a bad idea for a starter, the 18-140 is not the best lens but as a beginner its not the worst start you could make

depends how much you want to spend on glass really, camera aside the lens is THE most important part of the camera for resolving detail

What would you recommend as a best start?

Hopefully the price of the D5300 will come down with the announcement of the new D5500 at CES.

Also, I was doing some reading on the Nikon forums and the OP was looking for a versatile, "never take it off" type travel lens and they wholeheartedly recommended the 18-140 mm lens as being a great option.

[ShadowCaptain]

What would you recommend as a best start?

Hopefully the price of the D5300 will come down with the announcement of the new D5500 at CES.

Also, I was doing some reading on the Nikon forums and the OP was looking for a versatile, "never take it off" type travel lens and they wholeheartedly recommended the 18-140 mm lens as being a great option.

 

Depends what you want to spend haha

 

I started with a Canon 400d and fitted a Sigma 18-200 (I still have both) Which I used from like 2006 to 2010, in 2010ish I got a Sony SLT A33 as it shot video, in 2012 I got an Olympus EPL

 

and now I have a full frame Sony A7 and shoot pretty much with prime lenses

 

I would say, a decent mid range DSLR, I would get a nice fast prime, Get a 35 f1.8, (50mm on a crop DSLR), Maybe the cheap 50mm f1.8 (its so cheap and very good), 

 

There are a few cheap 18-105s, or 18-200 either Sigma or Nikon, if you want a walk around lens

 

If you had the budget Tamron do an excellent 24-70 f2.8  !!! though its 2 or 3 times the price of the camera

 

Really comes down to what you want to spend, but invest in glass is honestly the only advice I can give you, the kit lens on my Sony A7 is utterly shit despite the price of the camera (and the lens) and even using a cheap 50mm f1.8 lens from the 80s beats it !!!!

[TechGuy10]

Depends what you want to spend haha

I started with a Canon 400d and fitted a Sigma 18-200 (I still have both) Which I used from like 2006 to 2010, in 2010ish I got a Sony SLT A33 as it shot video, in 2012 I got an Olympus EPL

and now I have a full frame Sony A7 and shoot pretty much with prime lenses

I would say, a decent mid range DSLR, I would get a nice fast prime, Get a 35 f1.8, (50mm on a crop DSLR), Maybe the cheap 50mm f1.8 (its so cheap and very good),

There are a few cheap 18-105s, or 18-200 either Sigma or Nikon, if you want a walk around lens

If you had the budget Tamron do an excellent 24-70 f2.8 !!! though its 2 or 3 times the price of the camera

Really comes down to what you want to spend, but invest in glass is honestly the only advice I can give you, the kit lens on my Sony A7 is utterly shit despite the price of the camera (and the lens) and even using a cheap 50mm f1.8 lens from the 80s beats it !!!!

So it sounds like a good start would be the kit lens & a prime or body, walk around and prime lenses. I think that I'll just stick with the kit lens for now and then as I learn the camera better I will upgrade to some nicer prime and walk around lenses.

[ShadowCaptain]

So it sounds like a good start would be the kit lens & a prime or body, walk around and prime lenses. I think that I'll just stick with the kit lens for now and then as I learn the camera better I will upgrade to some nicer prime and walk around lenses.

 

Yeah if you can buy the camera body only for cheaper grab a prime

 

I think zoom lenses make people lazy, using a prime not only gives you a sharper faster lens (in general) but it also does something magical, it takes out your ability to zoom!!! 

 

You might think of this as a negative, but honestly its the best thing for a new (or experianced) photographer, especially if you are street shooting or just want run and gun, for a few reasons

1) fixed focal length, means you always know how each shot will turn out and how it will be framed - build muscle memory

2) 1 less thing to worry about

3) teaches you about shot composition, instead of just zooming in, you have to MOVE YOUR FEET, you have to move into position, find interesting angles, maybe it forces you to go closer in or further out than you expected, it really helps your creativity

 

What a lot of people do, which is fine, is get a zoom lens, and just walk around, zoom in, take a shot, without a single though about how it will look

 

Are you wanting to take photos? or do you want to learn photography as a passionate creative thing, that is the difference

 

That said using an 18-200 is not BAD per say, but your images WILL be less sharp and you WILL take lazy photos, trust me, even experienced photographers do it

But its completely  up to you

 

I also want to add, there is no right or wrong way to do photography, some may consider things "best practice" or "best results" but the outcome if your image is whatever you want it to be, its your canvas, and the camera is your paintbrush

 

Better gear CAN mean better results, but only in skilled hands, equally, if i had a £50k Camera... and you gave hmm lets say Philip Bloom a £5 disposable film camera, I guarentee he would take better photos than me

 

Photography is 50% gear, 50% creativity and 100% all your perception! If you are doing it for a hobby your images should interest you, not other people, that only matters if you are being paid

hopefully that helped a bit , I do waffle on sometimes

[Bsmith]

So it sounds like a good start would be the kit lens & a prime or body, walk around and prime lenses. I think that I'll just stick with the kit lens for now and then as I learn the camera better I will upgrade to some nicer prime and walk around lenses.

 

yes it would be a pretty good start(which i didn't, which i partly regret) since with zoomlenses you get the habit/ability to stay further away which actually only becomes of use with wildlife photography, since you are always able to crop out things and zoom in later on with a prime with takes sharper image's then a zoomlens. and further on mostly what shadow captain said, post above, so im not going to repeat it uselessly.

[TechGuy10]

Yeah if you can buy the camera body only for cheaper grab a prime

I think zoom lenses make people lazy, using a prime not only gives you a sharper faster lens (in general) but it also does something magical, it takes out your ability to zoom!!!

You might think of this as a negative, but honestly its the best thing for a new (or experianced) photographer, especially if you are street shooting or just want run and gun, for a few reasons

1) fixed focal length, means you always know how each shot will turn out and how it will be framed - build muscle memory

2) 1 less thing to worry about

3) teaches you about shot composition, instead of just zooming in, you have to MOVE YOUR FEET, you have to move into position, find interesting angles, maybe it forces you to go closer in or further out than you expected, it really helps your creativity

What a lot of people do, which is fine, is get a zoom lens, and just walk around, zoom in, take a shot, without a single though about how it will look

Are you wanting to take photos? or do you want to learn photography as a passionate creative thing, that is the difference

That said using an 18-200 is not BAD per say, but your images WILL be less sharp and you WILL take lazy photos, trust me, even experienced photographers do it

But its completely up to you

I also want to add, there is no right or wrong way to do photography, some may consider things "best practice" or "best results" but the outcome if your image is whatever you want it to be, its your canvas, and the camera is your paintbrush

Better gear CAN mean better results, but only in skilled hands, equally, if i had a £50k Camera... and you gave hmm lets say Philip Bloom a £5 disposable film camera, I guarentee he would take better photos than me

Photography is 50% gear, 50% creativity and 100% all your perception! If you are doing it for a hobby your images should interest you, not other people, that only matters if you are being paid

hopefully that helped a bit , I do waffle on sometimes

Thank you so much for this brilliant advice! This is exactly why I love the LTT community, not only do they have opinions but they have reasons and brilliant insight to back it up! Thank you for this brilliant inspiration and I wish you a great new year of shooting! I will buy the body only and pick up a prime lens like you have recommended. Out of the 35 mm & 55 mm options which is your preference?

Thank you so much for your insight! I look forward to future interaction in this forum.