Lens recommendations? Want a short/macro lens for Nikon D3000

[OriginalGeek]

I had a 70-200 macro zoom lens for my old Minolta film camera but I'm not sure what I really want now.

Price is important but it seems all the wide aperture lenses are in the $500 and up range...was hoping for less than that...

I was out of photography for a long time and am just recently getting back into it with my Nikon and everything has changed! Nikon doesn't even call them macro lenses, they're "micro" lenses?

I want good glass, decent price, huge hole to let in light and short for some cool wide angle and other things. IS this possible?

thanks!

[ManiacJoe]

1. Sounds like the 40mm f/2.8 Micro might be what you are looking for at $280 MSRP.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/CloseUp-Macro/index.page

Micro/macro is not my thing, so I cannot make any recommendations.

40mm on a DX body will not qualify as wide angle, not even on an FX body.

[OriginalGeek]

2. "40mm on a DX body will not qualify as wide angle, not even on an FX body. "

see this is stuff I need to know....thank you.

My last photography class was 30 years ago. Since then I've taken some pictures but I was never into it enough to know things like that. I thought I remembered learning that 50mm was about as long as you would want to do portraits and I was thinking I wanted to get closer than that (macro) or be able to get a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide shot in from fairly close range. The shortest lens that came with my camera is 70mm zoom and I have trouble fitting whole buildings from a cool angle. I have to stand further back and then it just looks flat and dull.

I hope I am explaining myself well enough to get the good advice I know abides here. I'm sure I'm clumsy at it as I just don't remember all the correct terminology or effects of what different set-ups can produce.

Hell, I may be asking for something I need 2 lenses for lol...

But that $280 is definitely more in the right price range.

Neither of my current lenses open wider than f4.5 so 2.8 should get me some of that really cool bokeh.

(I never heard the word bokeh until about 2 months ago when I was showing a friend some of my pictures and she commented on the bokeh. I said "the whaaaat?" and she said the bokeh...you know, focusing on the subject and getting a blurred background. And I said "Oh, i just always called it depth of field and tried to get a lot of shots like that because I like that lol." You'd think a guy who used to have a B/W dark room and used to know how to develop film and print pics would know there was a word for that. )

[ManiacJoe]

4. Two lenses may be the better option.

The definition of "wide angle" usually starts at 24-28mm for SLR/DSLR cameras and go down from there. Ultra wides are probably at the 14-15mm mark. (Someone will correct me if my numbers are off.)

Wide angle lenses can often focus quite close. This normally does not meet the definition of macro/micro, but it can be a fun process with or without caring how much perspective distortion you get.

Wide angle lenses with large apertures are pricey. Depends on what you are shooting whether it is worth it or not. For example, if you are doing mostly landscapes at f/11, your standard kit lens will often get the job done quite nicely.

Already mentioned, the 35mm f/1.8 is a great "normal" lens on the DX bodies at a great price ($200-ish).

Folks tell me that for macro work, longer focal lengths are easier to work with since you don't always want to (or cannot) get within fractions of an inch from the lens. Something closer to 100mm is where I would start, but that is just me.

Bokeh is a relatively new term (5-10 years) taken from the Japanese. It is normally used to describe the quality of the background blur (good bokeh vs bad bokeh).

[Burgman]

3. Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

$200.00 on Amazon right now. Just throw the above into Google and it will take you there.

[OriginalGeek]

5. Thank you folks!

Bokeh is a relatively new term (5-10 years) Oh! Well good - now I don't feel so stupid. lol!

As for the focal length, I have noticed with my regular zoom lenses that I can be far enough away to zoom in pretty close to an object BUT if I try to physically move closer to get a better close-up I cannot maintain focus. It is frustrating to see a good composition in my head and not be able to realize it on film (well, ccd lol).

On the other hand, for close ups of bugs and other animals, getting close would be near impossible without scaring them away...so I guess I'll have to experiment..and read this forum.

Thanks for the Amazon link, Burgman! Good lookin' out!

[ManiacJoe]

6. Nikonians.org: a great site for help and advise.

[Major Nikon]

7. Nikon has always called them "micro"

At least in the last 40 years or so.

As far as Nikon micro goes, all of their lenses which receive such designation will produce a .5x magnification ratio or better(the bigger the number, the more magnification). This sounds complicated, but really it's simple. The width of the sensor on your D3000 is just shy of 1". So if you take a picture of an object that is 2" across at your closest focus, it will fill the frame. (2" times .5x = 1" ). If you have a lens that does 1x, you can fill the frame with a 1" object.

Now what you should be asking yourself is do you really need a lens that can fill the frame with a 1" object? If you do, then you'll need a micro lens that does 1x. You really don't need that level of magnification unless you're doing fairly serious macro work. Some Nikon lenses will still focus very close, even though Nikon doesn't designate them as "micro".

You can see all the lenses Nikon sells new here:
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/All-Lenses/index.page

Notice the specs on the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II. It has a Maximum Reproduction Ratio of .31x. That means it will focus close enough to fill the frame with about a 3" object. If this lens works for you, I highly recommend it. It's an excellent quality lens that takes great pictures, and it's relatively cheap.

Keep in mind that new lenses which aren't designated as AF-S will not autofocus with your D3000.

[OriginalGeek]

8. I did not know that about Nikon calling them all micro

Everybody gotta be different lol...

they seem to have 2 versions of that 18-55mm one with VR and one without. 196 and 139 at B&H photo...

but the 196.00 one comes with some free tiffen filters so I think I'll get that.


And then start saving up for a couple other things I saw there!



I think I'm gonna need a bigger case....

[Major Nikon]

9. You can get a refurbished Nikon 18-55mm VR for $110 from Cameta

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-18-55mm-VR-AF-S-DX-Digital-Lens-D3000-D40-D3100-/140655328281

Cameta is a good outfit to deal with. I've bought a few Nikon refurbished products and never had an issue. If you're concerned about buying refurbished, Cameta has 1 and 2 yr warranties available.

The 18-55mm is possibly the most widely sold kit lens with Nikon DSLRs and a lot of people dump them on the used market. So it's not uncommon to find them pretty cheap, even the VR versions. This is a bit unfortunate for many because this is an excellent lens that takes great pictures. I have more than 20 Nikon lenses and I still keep and use my 18-55mm. I buy and use a lot of used lenses and I can't remember ever having any serious issues with buying used.