What kind of Lens is good

[Disneygirl 792]

Hi everyone, My DH got me a Nikon D5000 for Mother's Day. It came with the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Lens. I think I am set on getting the
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens for indoor shots of DS and DD.
My question is what is best for an "everyday/primary" lens?
We're going to WDW in Aug for DS 5th B-day and I don't want to keep switching lenses.

Thanks

 

[Mosca]

The one that came with the camera, the 18-55, is a good lens; light, with a good zoom range. Generally speaking, Nikon's and Canon's kit lenses for their entry cameras represent good bargains and good choices (IMO, of course). You can spend a lot more and not see the difference in most shots.

 

[Hoan & Poopie]

The 18-55 is a good lens and has the benefit of being relatively small and light. If you want something with more range either the 18-105 or if you are willing to spend more, the 16-85 or 18-200 are good options. I had used all of these when I used to have a DX crop camera. Best for me was probably the 16-85, but again the 18-55 is no slouch.

 

[photo_chick]

This is really a question that speaks to personal preference and shooting style. What's best for me may not be best for you.

Switching lenses is part of owning a DSLR. Once you've done it for a while it's really not a big deal.

I'd suggest sticking with the kit lens until you are ready to make an informed purchase based on your personal shooting style. Otherwise you could end up dropping $$$ on a lens you end up not really liking, or using.

 

[Disneygirl 792]

I was looking at the 18-200. It seems to be what I'm looking for but I'm still so indecisive.

 

[Steve's Girl]

There is no one lens that will work well in every situation. Decide what is most important to you and buy the best lens for that purpose and realize you will compromise in other areas. I have the 18-200 lens. The lens is great outside, but will not do very well in low-light situations. The 50 1.4 will be great in low light, but not as versatile for other situations. My first two trips to Disney, I took my 18-200 and the 50mm 1.8. I kept the 18-200 on the camera most of the time and only switched to the 50mm for Spectro or walking around the park after dark.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

As Photo_Chick stated "What kind of lens is good?" is very subjective to the type of shooting you are going to do. As I tell my DW all the time when she is using my wrench as a hammer,, the right tool for the right job!! You will need to determine what your going to shoot and then research what lens will be required to get that shot. Between my last two trips to WDW, I determined I wanted to shoot low light for the parades without the use of a flash. That was going to require a minimum of a 2.8 lens. I chose to purchase two such lenses (28-70 and 70-200). Both of these are heavier and bulkier than the standard kit lens. The 28-70 stayed on my camera almost all the time. If your intent is to shoot the dark rides you will need something in the range of 1.4-1.8. Remember, I am not discussing the use of high ISO to compensate for lower speed lenses. That's always an option, but since I don't shoot Nikon (Pentax) I'm not familar with the high ISO capability of the 5000. I wanted to purchase a Sigma 30 f1.4 for shooting the dark rides, but my budget wouldn't allow for it. I had an older manual lens that I tried to use, but I wasn't as successful as I had hoped. Before my next trip to WDW, I will have the Sigma 30, besides my DW will find that it is a lens that best fits her style. I hope that I haven't lost you with this explanation. If your intent is to shoot in good light, then the kit lens and the 18-200 will work fine. Its when the light goes down, those don't perform as well. With the fireworks, almost any lens will work as long as you have a tripod and some type of remote control (I use wireless).

Sorry Steve's Girl, we must have been typing at the same time and said basically the same thing!

 

[Disneygirl 792]

Ok, I will be using the "walk around" lens for just that...walking around, taking spurr of the moment pics of my DS here and there. I'm not even entertaining the thought of taking pics on rides dark or otherwise...(I haven't even tinkered around with the ISO)I'll just use a camcorder for fireworks nighttime parades and the like.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

In that case the 18-200 should work just fine. It will be wide enough for all normal situations and give you the reach for Animal Kingdom. You probably won't even have to change lenses!

 

[photo_chick]

Keep in mind the decreased image quality you will have and how much it might need to be stopped down at certain focal lengths to perform well with a lens like an 18-200. As well as the extra weight over your 18-55.

Not trying to talk you out of it, but there are some definite drawbacks to the "all in one" zooms. Be sure you're aware of them.

 

[pjacobi]

It came with the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Lens. I think I am set on getting the
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens for indoor shots of DS and DD.

Instead of a new lens for indoor shots, consider purchasing an external flash. Once you learn how to use external flash, you can produce photos much better than average P/S camera with flash, i.e. no red-eye, no harsh shadows or washed out faces.


-Paul

 

[scrappymel]

has anyone walked around with the 18-200 all day?

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

has anyone walked around with the 18-200 all day?

The Nikkor lens is 19 oz. and the Tamron version is 14 oz. I have carried a 70-200 f2.8 all day, which is much heavier (48 oz). It eventually got heavy but not unbearable. The 18-200 is a relative lightweight.

 

[tjl1388]

I have rented a Nikon 24-70 2.8 several times for both work and play and have decided to make the plunge.

My question in the fact that I can buy a sigma model for roughly HALF the price. Now I am all about getting what you pay for but in this case I am really wondering if there is a $8-900 difference.

I am not to worried as far as landscape and portrait work....where I am worried about it is when I go and shoot competitive cheerleading in some of the most atrocious lighting conditions on the planet with 15-25 girls flying around like tinkerbell on speed. Any help would greatly appreciated.


This is the lens in question...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/350972-REG/Sigma_548306_24_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I can't speak to the Nikon lens (Pentax shooter), but I do have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EX. I purchased it as a cheaper alternative ($349) to both of the 24-70's, HSM and the non-HSM. I have been extremely pleased with it. The majority of the 3000 images I took on our recent trip to WDW were with that lens. You can see some of the results on the below thread.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2491060

Good luck with your research.

 

[DragonSlyr]

I have this lens for my Canon and have been quite happy with it. I have two daughters in competitive gymnastics and know the difficulty of shooting high speed in poor light without a flash.

Tom

[/url][/IMG]

 

[Master Mason]

I have rented a Nikon 24-70 2.8 several times for both work and play and have decided to make the plunge.

My question in the fact that I can buy a sigma model for roughly HALF the price. Now I am all about getting what you pay for but in this case I am really wondering if there is a $8-900 difference.

I am not to worried as far as landscape and portrait work....where I am worried about it is when I go and shoot competitive cheerleading in some of the most atrocious lighting conditions on the planet with 15-25 girls flying around like tinkerbell on speed. Any help would greatly appreciated.


This is the lens in question...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/350972-REG/Sigma_548306_24_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

Here is my take on it. No the lens is not going to be twice as good, but it also won't be equally as good.

So the Question becomes will you be happy with the Sigma, or are you one of those people like me that when I want the best, nothing else will do, so in purchasing the cheaper option all I would be doing was spending twice as eventually I would buy the more expensive one anyway.

There are many things that I'm just fine with cheaper or generic options, but on those that I determine I want the best, nothing else is going to do.

 

[YesDear]

I have said before in other threads that I love to save money, particularly on camera equipment. One of my major exceptions is glass. When you are talking quality glass, I believe you do not scrimp. I am also a lens snob. I shoot Nikon cameras and since my mid forties, I have only purchased Nikon glass.

I do not have the lens you want but know a number of people that have the lens. They all love it. Go for it.

 

[pgowder]

I just recently switched to Nikon from Sony. I struggled with this same question.

I used the Sigma 70-200mm on Sony/Minolta for several years.

I didn't realize what a difference premium glass would make until I bought the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. Wow! This thing is amazingly sharp! As Moose Peterson likes to say "wicked sharp".

Sigmas are good lenses and I'll probably buy a Sigma UWA soon.

But if you can afford it always buy the better glass!

I haven't regretted the extra $800 at all!

 

[Mosca]

I've bought premium glass, always. But I need to say something about the non-premium.

My 40D came with the Canon 28-135 as a kit lens. This lens gets sniffed at a lot by Canon users. And its feel isn't the same as the L lenses. But there is nothing wrong with the pictures. Color fidelity is excellent, and the lens is sharp (on APS-C) at all ranges to all corners. Perspective distortion is low.

The only non-Canon I have is a Tokina 11-16; the photos are so sharp you could cut your finger. That lens was about $600, if I recall correctly.

Use your best judgment. You can't go wrong buying premium, but that doesn't mean you'll always go wrong not buying premium.