What lens should I buy after a Nikon 18-55mm kit lens: telephoto zoom or a fast prime?
Asked 12/19/2011
3 views
2 answers
0
I'm new to DSLRs and have a Nikon D3000 with the 18-55mm kit lens. When walking around or shooting on trails, I'm already noticing some limitations. Should my next lens be a telephoto zoom like the 55-200mm or 55-300mm, or would it make more sense to buy a different type of lens first? I'm still figuring out what kind of photography I want to do.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
8
A 200mm lens is pretty long on an APS-C DSLR, equivalent in length to a 300mm lens on a traditional 35mm (or "full format" DSLR) camera. Of course, you may still find that length limiting for some purposes, but it's more than adequate for most genres of photography. And new or used, the 55-200mm zoom (with or without VR image stabilization) is a cheap lens that will let you explore your direction in photography without a major financial outlay.
Perhaps the most important thing when buying photographic equipment is knowing what you really need. Lenses, especially, can become really expensive in a hurry. By exploring the cheap option now, you will be in a better position to decide, when the time comes, whether you need, say, a good, fast, long lens (zoom or prime), or something with the ultimate in versatility (like, say, the 18-200mm zoom). The relatively low price of the 55-200mm will give you the full range of focal lengths, and you can tell by the kinds of pictures you find yourself taking (or still wishing you could take) what your next step should be. If all or most of your pictures are at longer focal lengths, then a faster 70- or 80-200mm zoom might be the ticket. If you find that you're working consistently between 55 and 100mm, then you might find that a shorter zoom or an 85mm prime lens is really what you need. Or you may find that having the "dual kit" is perfectly adequate for your needs.
If the 55-200mm doesn't do the trick for you, you can sell it for nearly what you paid for it. If you splurge on something that doesn't scratch your immediate itch (wanting a longer reach), you may find yourself with something you'll take a significant loss on when you change your mind. Don't worry about what's "right"; take the time to figure out what's right for you. When you're ready to jump into the deep end, you'll know.
Originally by user2719. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user2719
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
It depends on what feels limiting now.
If you mainly want more reach for distant subjects, a 55-200mm is a sensible, low-cost way to explore telephoto photography. On a Nikon APS-C body, 200mm already gives a very long field of view, so it’s enough for many uses and helps you learn what focal lengths you actually need before spending more.
If your bigger frustration is indoor, low-light, or general walk-around shooting, several photographers would choose a fast prime first—especially the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, or a 50mm f/1.8. A fast prime is light, sharp, and much better than the kit lens in low light.
So the practical answer is:
- choose a 55-200mm if you want reach
- choose a 35mm f/1.8 (or 50mm f/1.8) if you want better everyday/low-light performance
Because you’re still discovering your interests, starting with the less expensive option that solves your current problem is the safest move.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX worth buying if I already have the 18-55mm kit lens?
Which lens setup makes the most sense for a college photography club with Nikon entry-level bodies?
Will a Nikon 70-300mm lens work on a Nikon D3300?
What should I watch out for when using a telephoto zoom like the Canon EF-S 55-250mm?
Should I buy the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS, or a cheap 70-300mm plus the 50mm f/1.8 for my Rebel T2i?