Recommendation for my next lens?

[kristenh]

I have a nikon d5000 and the kit lens, which i'm not at all fond of, and the 35 mm 1.8 lens which i'm very fond of. i photograph mostly my kids, who are young and active. i'd like a zoom lens, but i don't really know how to choose one that would be best for my purposes. i never do anything posed or with a tripod and am always in action with these particular subjects, so best if its not huge/heavy/hard to keep still.

does anyone have any recommendations?

should add that i'm strictly an amateur, if you haven't already guessed that. budget is probably below $700 or so.

thanks

[frydham]

Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED VR

Or

Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED

Or

Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

[SusanH1970]

I shoot Canon, so take this for what it's worth, LOL...I saw this on B&H...it's a zoom, it's in your price range, and it's a bit faster than the previous lenses listed. Perhaps someone who has one can give their opinion.

[danbaileyphoto]

Actually, if you like to shoot portraits and your kids, I'd recommend the Nikon 85mm f1.8. It's an awesome and very fast portrait lens. Gives you great shallow depth of field and allows you to shoot in slightly lower light.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by SusanH1970

I shoot Canon, so take this for what it's worth, LOL...I saw this on B&H...it's a zoom, it's in your price range, and it's a bit faster than the previous lenses listed. Perhaps someone who has one can give their opinion.

Susan: That len's is an AF-D, not AF-S. So no autofocus on the OP's D5000

of Frdyham's suggestions, the 16-85 would be best, but most expensive.

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Susan: That len's is an AF-D, not AF-S. So no autofocus on the OP's D5000

Aha...thanks for the heads up, Adam. I should stick to inquiries regarding Canon, LOL! On B&H it said it wouldn't AF on the D40 and D60, so I thought it would on the D5000.

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by kristenh

does anyone have any recommendations?

The 16-85 is a very good general lens. Good optics, well build, I love mine and I use it all the time.

The only thing that bug me here is you want reach. 85mm is nice over the 35mm but not nice like taking a good shoot during a soccer game like the 200mm will give you.

I would maybe check the 70-300 VR but it's slow. Picture taken in the afternoon will not be an issue. But those taken at the arena will be noisy due to high ISO to compensate or blurry due to slow shutter.

The new 55-300 might be a cheaper solution to investigate as well. Haven't read many reviews about the new one. It was created for amateur who wanted more reach.

Hope this helps.

[kristenh]

thank you all for your timely responses. and thank you, Susan, for trying

i have a couple followup questions:

Originally Posted by danbaileyphoto

Actually, if you like to shoot portraits and your kids, I'd recommend the Nikon 85mm f1.8. It's an awesome and very fast portrait lens. Gives you great shallow depth of field and allows you to shoot in slightly lower light.

aside from being able to get close in portraits from further away, would this one have an advantage over my 35 mm 1.8? like- the one advantage i'd like to have is a slightly less shallow DOF at max aperture- so i can be "fast" but not have problems where one eye is in focus and the other isn't.

The only thing that bug me here is you want reach. 85mm is nice over the 35mm but not nice like taking a good shoot during a soccer game like the 200mm will give you.

yes, this is what bugs me, too- i think i'd like a nice long option.

The new 55-300 might be a cheaper solution to investigate as well. Haven't read many reviews about the new one. It was created for amateur who wanted more reach.

almost all the reviews of this one on the b and h website were positive- worth looking into

of Frdyham's suggestions, the 16-85 would be best,

OS and Frdyham- why would this be best?

my brother is recommending this one:

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom 2192 B&H

anybody think of any pluses and minuses to that?

thanks so much!

[frydham]

Disclaimer: I'm a Canon shooter, and may have no idea what I'm talking about.... But....

From what I understand the 16-85 has better optics. If you're primarily shooting action I would recommend keeping your kit lens, and getting the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II (although I don't know if it will auto-focus on your D3000). That way you have the 18-200 distance covered (with a slight gap) plus f/2.8 at 200mm. And then later you can upgrade your kit lens to the 16-85.

Once again, I'm a Canon shooter and may have no idea what I'm talking about.... Buuuuut.... From what I understand (Whoa, déjà vu ) the 18-200 won't give you very much quality over your kit lens.

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by kristenh

i have a couple followup questions:

85mm 1.8 - This issue with the eye in focus and the other one doesn't:
This is the "downside" of opening the aperture. You get more light in but also get a shallow depth of field. Longuer focal length tend to compress everything so the 85mm will theorically help you with this but practice is the key. Sometime you have to focus between to get both eyes in focus.

16-85 being the best:
Many people consider this lens one of the top in the serious amateur category. The lens doesn't sacrifice image quality for the range and that's a problem with many entry level zooms. But I still beleive you would benefit from a longuer range than 85mm.

18-200:
This is not a bad lens, and very convenient if you on want to carry one lens. It sacrifice the image quality a little for the convinience though. Don't get me wrong, it's not as bad as people say, but there is better options if you goal is sharpness. Image quality is better if you use the 18-55 / 55-200 combo, but you have to carry 2 lens. Photography is often about compromises.


I have the 70-300 and I have used the extra 100mm in many occasion. That's why I beleive the 55-300 could be a very nice option for your budget, but I would check what people are saying. Like I said, haven't read much about it yet. I would also buy a SB600 with it and it would still be under your budget. A good flash is always usefull for kids/portrait/indoor. Fast glass sometimes are not enough. Bounces are also very cool to play with and give a "natural" feel to your indoor picture. The stop per $ gain artificial light gives is cheaper.