Could use some opinions on lenses...

[Vexed Mind]

I've read countless forums, articles and reviews, and picked several people's brains, but I'm still at a loss as to which lens to pick up now.

I've been sitting on my 18-55 kit lens for a year trying to decide which to grab next. I'd prefer to pick up only one more right now, but am considering two, if that would make a huge difference at this time.

95% of what I shoot is nature, generally closeups of the typical flowers and bugs and such - though not macro - (I'd love to pick up a macro lens, but I'd prefer not to drop $600-850 at the moment) - and my 2 year old girl/other children/some adults. I usually photograph the children outside in pretty much unending sunshine (Southern California), and 9/10 of my favorite shots are close in on the face.. though of course I also do torso/full body shots.

I've been wanting to grab the Nikon 35mm 1.8, but I'm wondering if it will be too wide for the close portraits? Is there a single lens that would work for what I like to shoot, or do I really HAVE to grab two?

I've heard fabulous things about the 35mm, also the 50mm, but alot of what I'm hearing is tipping more in favor of the 35 (not to mention the 50 won't AF on my D40). I'd love to pick up a prime, as the sharpness is superb, but would it work for all my shots, or should I grab a zoom as well? I'm not overly concerned about getting too close to a subject. I'd really appreciate some input and suggestions on this, I've been grabbing my car keys every day for two weeks to go pick up a lens but decide that I haven't decided.

Also, I would really prefer to keep it $300 and under for a single lens, and under about $500 for two. Not the best, I know. I *can* spend more, and I wouldn't mind opinions and recommendations on any and all lenses (Ok I'd say $1500 and under), but I want to keep it as low as possible while I feel out what I really like.

[OsmosisStudios]

There *is* a 50mm that will AF on your D40: it's the f/1.4 AF-S version. Its about $400.

I'd say get the 55-200 VR and the 35/1.8

[Shokinen]

Hi there,

You have a few options for your budget but not much. Photography is definitly not a cheap hobby.

I posted some example with my 35mm f1.8
Following is the link so it will give you some ideas of what you can acheive with this lens.
What lens should I buy next?

I didn't get this impression in your post but if you feel you are sometime "far" from your subject with your lens setup @ 55mm, maybe you could check into the 55-200 VR. I think is not over your budget and could be a nice addition to your kit. You won't get the DoF of the 35mm but you'll get nice close-ups from a longuer distance between you and your subject.

Just some ideas

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'd say get the 55-200 VR and the 35/1.8

You read my mind

[LenDog]

Consider the Tamron 17-50mm, a bit over your high end for 2 lenses at about $650 with ILS, but a great lens. I have the Sony version (less exp w/o the ILS), and have been able to do everything you described with it. I've never been dissappointed with this lens.

[jengallardo]

Have you ever considered renting lenses? There's a great place in California called Borrow Lenses (here's a link: BorrowLenses.com - Camera Rental and Canon/Nikon Lens Rental).

The great part about renting is you can try before you buy!

Good Luck!
Jen

[Huesos]

Tamron makes a 70-300 lens with macro. I have it in a canon mount, but I'm sure there's a nikon as well. There's no IS/VR but the macro images it makes are really sharp, and I believe it's between the 200-300 dollar range.

[kevirose]

Given that you are using a Dx camera the 35mm would be fine. Getting close to the subject can also make the image more intimate. Also, don't be afraid to introduce a little barral distortion into the image as it adds a bit of interest.

I would ensure that you have a 50m f1.4 prime lens which on a DX camera is a superb portrait lens.

I have recently added a 16-24mm f4 Tokina lens to my kit and it has become an instant favourite for portrait work. Remember that the 24mm is the equivalent to the 35mm on a Full Frame Camera.

[dcharlie]

I had the same questioning a few month ago.
I picked the 50 1.8D (no AF on a D40, but I shoot with a D300) and it takes great shots but I sometimes feel it is already a bit too long (DX means it looks like a 75mm).
So the 35 is now somewhere on my wish list (which also contains completely unreasonable items as a 70-200VR F2.8, well you have to dream...)

Daniel

[ken1974]

Dear Vexed Mind,

I faced the same doubts few months ago (Nikon D40 with kit lens, non VR), and got the AF-S 35mm/1.8 and 55-200 (almost at the same time). The 35 mm is a superb lens to play in low light without flash and with DoF effects... I took a lot of pictures of my 7 month old daughter with it (interior), and find them superb (though I am purely an amateur). You have to get relatively close because of the "wide" angle, but on the D40 this lens is equivalent to a 50mm on a full frame... I also played quite a lot with 0.5-2 s shots in the crowd... In summary this is the lens I have the more fun with, for a moderate price...

My feeling about the 55-200 (VR) is that it is more conventional and similar to the 18-55 kit lens in the field... Though, I used it quite a lot (around 1600 shots in 6 months) for portraits in the street or more crowdy environments, as well as for more nature photography (close-up of ducks and seagulls and landscapes, this kind of stuff)...

Having this three lenses is a very good combination (at least for me), and they are part of Ken Rockwell's dream team for the D40... He also recommends a wide angle zoom, wich is totally on a different budget...

Go first for the 35 mm without any doubt because it is so much fun to shoot with... For the second one, it totally depends on your needs for macro (which I don't do)... But otherwise the 55-200 is a very good lens (at least for my amateur practice) and good complement to the kit lens for a reasonable price...

Hope this helps