I need advice buying a new lense

[Exposures]

I'm looking for a new lense for my nikon DSLR.

My sister is getting married this weekend, and while I'm not the hired photographer, I'd like to take advantage of the special day and get some great shots.

I only have about $200 MAX that I would spend on a lense. Is one that cheap even worth buying? I have the standard lense that came with the camera.

Also wodnering if I should spend the $15 and get a lense hood. I usually use my camera on automatic setting, so will anything make a difference?

[NikS]

There's a subforum for those types of questions, mate, just look abit down next time

On the subject - nikon 35mm f/1.8 AF-S. It's 200$ brand new, fast, sharp, and very capable in low light situations.
In case you don't own a separate flash i'd strongly suggest looking through DIY subforum for a way to make some sort of bounce card for built-in flash.
About hoods - not even sure if they make them for kit lenses, plus, the one i suggested above comes with one included.

[Exposures]

Thanks! I thought I looked, but I must not have looked good enough.

Can I move it or will the mods move it?

What about this lense?
Amazon.com: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SLD DG Macro Lens with built in motor for…

[kirbinster]

Lenses cost a lot of money, and you aren't going to get a lot for under $200. You might try to get a friend to lend you one, or failing that rent a really good lens for the wedding.

[NikS]

Mods will most likely

I wouldn't get it for couple of reasons:

1) I'm not a big fan of Sigma in general.
2) This particular lens is not bad as an outdoor walkaround lens, but it's too slow for shooting event in low light.

My best recommendation would tamron 70-200 2.8, but it's quite out of your price range.
Let's put it simple - you won't get anything else but that 35mm i advised on earlier for that price. But, don't think it's bad, oh no, it's a gem of a lens! Not the best choice for portraits, since you'll have to get pretty close, but otherwise - you'll quickly ditch your 18-55 after using this baby

[Sime]

moved... :-)

Honestly, I'd save your 200 big ones and rent something, or loan something... Until you know what you really need / want without the pressure to perform with a new, untested (to you) lens...

Hope this helps.

Sime

[inkista]

Like NikS said: the 35/1.8 if you have to buy.

The maximum aperture of the 35 is f/1.8. This is more than three stops wider than your 18-55 when zoomed all the way in to 55mm.

Three stops is 2³ or 8 times the light. It's the light-gathering difference between iso 100 and iso 800 or the shutter speed of 1/8s vs. 1/64s. With an f/1.8 lens, chances are good you'll be able to get good shots without a flash and handheld indoors.

Originally Posted by Exposures

...Also wodnering if I should spend the $15 and get a lense hood. I usually use my camera on automatic setting, so will anything make a difference?

A hood is good for physical protection of the front element of a lens, and for shading the lens from flare from shooting into the light. The 18-55 is cheap enough that a hood may not be worth it, and wide enough, that the lens is going to have to be really shallow anyway. Just me, but I don't think it's worth it.

Sime's suggestion of renting is good, too, but you'll want to be sure you rent for at least a few days before the big event, so you'll have time to practice. The 18-55 kit does not prepare you for shooting with a telephoto.

[Exposures]

I think I should just keep saving until I can buy a good lense. I'm not that advanced yet anyway. (Having major trouble with the manual settings.)

I do think I need to get a cleaning kit.

[NikS]

If you talking about lens cleaning - just get a piece of microfiber cloth. I wouldn't use any liquid solution, just a breath on the glass if things are really bad. Also consider getting a clear uv filter to protect your lens.
If you mean sensor cleaning - just take it to a shop, it's what, about 10$? Personally, i prefer not to do it myself.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Rent a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8?