Nikon D3000

[bili_k6]

Hi i have a nikon d3000 my first DSLR and i would like to know what the best lens to buy first. i have the kit lens but would like to expand and try new things.
currently i am doing a course on photography so i am trying to get a understanding of different lenses and getting the next one up from what i have would help me move forward.

thank you.

[ricktas]

What do you photograph? Lenses are made to suit the genre. Wide-angle for landscapes, Macro for close-up (and also portraiture), Telephoto for sports and nature (birds and animals)..get the idea? So tell us what you like to take photos of, and we can recommend lenses to suit the genres you like.

[skunky]

You'll also most certainly want to buy either the 55-200mm or 55-300mm to complement your kit 18-55mm. The 10-24mm is sensational for landscapes, but it's a little pricey at ~$800, but I'd probably look at something like this after you pick up a telephoto.

[TOM]

Hi Bilz

finish your course, get some shooting under your belt, then decide what to buy. if you don't know what to buy, then you don't need it. you may end up shooting a completely different camera system to a SFDSLR, such as MFSLR, rangefinder, EVIL, TLR et al. lenses won't help you move forward if you don't know how to exploit them. lighting and composition will get you going in the right direction. Photography is not about getting the latest diggicam or zoom lens.

Congratulations on making the first step in improving your photography, good luck with the course.

[smallfooties]

If you like something in the 18 - 55mm range, perhaps the sigma 18 - 50 f2.8 might be good to consider?
I don't know... what genre are you interested in and are likely to stick with and work on?
Because lens are very expensive and you fairly want to be certain when buying a lens as otherwise, you might lose alot of money changing and changing - if you know what i mean.
I started with the twin kit lens and found that i barely used my telephoto one because of the genre i'm interested in. Then i became frustrated with IQ of the kit hence, my subsequent purchases. But you know, it took me about 2 years before i outgrew my kit lens? Not to say you would take a similar amount of time to outgrow yours.
But yeah... we really need to know what you're interested in shooting before we ( i mean the others! hahaha) can advice. Because we can say to buy this and that but, at the end of the day if it doesn't suit your needs then it's pretty much wasting money.
-shrugs- just a thought that's all...
With that said, i've heard the tammy 10 - 16 is the best wideangle lens out there....The sigma 18 - 50 f 2.8 is pretty awesome... The sigma 105mm f2.8 is also pretty cool... Sigma 10 - 20 is fabulous - all i have and really love... But i'm bias cos i probably don't know better... kekeke....

[kiwi]

If you must buy a 70-300 vr

[bili_k6]

Thanks everyone for the advise, i will def look at finishing my course and then looking at what to get, i am just finding it hard to understand this course, but with more reading and practice of the camera i will get it.

thank you again.

[super duper]

Hi bili, I am also new to photography and have the D3000. As soon as it showed up I realised the 18-55mm lens wasn't long enough (I predominantly photograph my kids) so I ordered the 55-200mm. I really really wish I'd gotten the 55-300mm, so I am in the process of selling my 55-200mm on ebay so I can upgrapde. I also bought a 35mm prime f/1.8, as I like to take close up portraits of my kids (plus it was a cheap lens). My husband reckons I should get the 150-500mm sigma (easier to keep up with active kids without moving, especially for sports), but I've read a lot of mixed reviews about sigma. Personally I'm tempted just to stick to Nikkor.

In the next 12mnths (probably next christmas) I'd like to buy a 10-20mm'ish lens. I love the wide angle look, but these lenses aren't cheap.

Unfortunately, doing a course isn't an option for me, so I'm trying to learn from the world wide web atm

[bili_k6]

Hi super,
sounds like your getting a hang of your camera really well, the lens i would like to get next would be a zoom lens so i thought i would ask for recommendation on which one is the best, i would like to shoot wildlife, long range photos.

thanks

[peterb666]

Hi super,
sounds like your getting a hang of your camera really well, the lens i would like to get next would be a zoom lens so i thought i would ask for recommendation on which one is the best, i would like to shoot wildlife, long range photos.

thanks

That's a fairly demanding task and there are a huge range of options with prices to match.

Maybe the Nikon 70-300 VR if you have the money (about $900 in Oz and around $700 grey import or from overseas). There is a cheaper 55-300mm VR zoom but the more expensive lens has much better image quality. VR is useful if you want to hand-hold the lens.

All of these options are quite slow (small aperture) so have their limits. If you want to get faster f/2.8 or f/4 constant aperture zooms, the price goes up accordingly although if you want to limit the zoom to 200mm at the top end, you can get some that are quite affordable (i.e. in the same price range as above). Your choices here are the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom. This lens has been around for quite a while - no VR but stunning image quality. I would like one of these myself. Sigma and others make 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms (I think the Sigma is the pick of the bunch in 3-rd party brands).

Hope that gives you a few options rather than add to the confusion.

Probably a better choice for wildlife would be the Sigma 120-400mm zoom and it is around the same price.

[peterb666]

My husband reckons I should get the 150-500mm sigma (easier to keep up with active kids without moving, especially for sports), but I've read a lot of mixed reviews about sigma. (

I have this lens and so do a few others at AP. Also popular is the 120-400mm Sigma. I don't know if the 150-500 would be ideal for your intended purpose as it is a bit long at the wide end and only focusses to 2.2 metres. I would think the Nikon 70-300 VR would be a better choice for similar dollars. If you want to shoot the moon and things a fair distance away, the the Sigma wins hands down.

Some criticism of the 150-500 has been put at using the lens at wide open apertures over 300mm but I have no issues with the performance in that regard and I do use it like that often.

[NicR]

I have this camera too and have been looking into Macro lenses. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good macro lens?

[peterb666]

I have this camera too and have been looking into Macro lenses. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good macro lens?

There are so many options and much will depend on your budget and whether you want to use the lens for other purposes.

Some options include:

Nikon Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 - compact, internal focussing and good value for money.

Tamron 60mm f/2 macro - now here is an interesting lens, a good macro performer (although at the low end of the focal length), fast enough for portrait work, good bokeh for this focal length and very versatile. Priced closer to a 90 or 105 mm lens is the downside. I haven't compared prices with the Nikon 60mm but I expect it would probably be cheaper.

Nikon Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 VR - similar to above but bigger and slower but with VR which may help with hand-held work.

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro - great value for money and a very good lens too. Quite popular with AP shooters.

Tokina 100mm f/2.8 - a bit more expensive than the Tamron, top optical quality, a little heavy for its size.

Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR - arguably the best macro lens in the mid range focal lengths.

Some zooms that focus to around 1:2 are OK for close up work and may well do for 99% of what you are after but won’t have the sharpness and won’t get you to true macro.

Quality close up lenses are very expensive (e.g. the Canon 500D – the 2-element close up lens, not the camera – is about half the price of the cheaper dedicated macro lenses).

A nifty-fifty with auto focus extension tubes will work but are not convenient for field use. A set of tubes that will maintain AF and exposure readings costs as much as the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. The sum total approaching the cost of the cheaper dedicated macro lenses. This is generally only a viable option if you already have a suitable lens.

[kiwi]

All macro lenses are good really, they are specifically designed for that purpose

The focal length is more important, eg a 60mm macro has a very different minimum focus distance to a 180mm macro

Also, you can do macros using a fast 50 and extension tubes

[bjholton]

I have the D3000 also and have had if for about a year now, since getting it I have added two lenses to my kit a Sigma DG 70-300 4-5.6 with a macro switch and a Sigma EX HSM 50 mm 1.4 prime, both a brilliant lenses, with the 70-300 being attached to the body 75% of the time that I am shooting.

[super duper]

I have this lens and so do a few others at AP. Also popular is the 120-400mm Sigma. I don't know if the 150-500 would be ideal for your intended purpose as it is a bit long at the wide end and only focusses to 2.2 metres. I would think the Nikon 70-300 VR would be a better choice for similar dollars. If you want to shoot the moon and things a fair distance away, the the Sigma wins hands down.

Some criticism of the 150-500 has been put at using the lens at wide open apertures over 300mm but I have no issues with the performance in that regard and I do use it like that often.

Thanks for your thoughts Peter, I am leaning towards this lens too (or the 28-300, I'm not quite sure yet. Don't wanna cough up the extra bucks if it's not needed, but I want to be really happy with the lens too). I probably won't be buying a thing 'til next chrissy, so I've got plenty of time to think about it

[peterb666]

Bear in mind the wider the zoom range, the more compromises made. The 28-300 is an ineresting lens, but something has to give at the extremes of 10.5x zoom. Unless you want to use a single lens for most of your work, you will find better value elsewhere.

[super duper]

Bear in mind the wider the zoom range, the more compromises made. The 28-300 is an ineresting lens, but something has to give at the extremes of 10.5x zoom. Unless you want to use a single lens for most of your work, you will find better value elsewhere.

Good to know. I am only really interested in the telephoto zoom region. I've read the 70-300 is a brilliant lens upto 200mm, but past that it is mediocre at best.