Lens recommendations for Nikon D5000 please

snow patrol

snow patrol

snow patrol

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
3,923
Location
London
hi all, i'm in need of a lens for my d5000. I had previously been using an 18-55 lens that came bundled with my old d40, but that's broken. To be honest, i'm hoping that might end up being a blessing in disguise as i suppose it was essentially very much an entry level choice.

i tend to like taking fairly close up stuff, but not like super macro close up. I'd like a bit of zoom, at least to 55 would be nice.

I tend to like doing manual focus and am trying to veer away form the 'auto' features on my camera, and am trying to do everything (aperture, exposure, focus etc) manually.

So can anyone recommend a good lens for me, that won't break the bank. I can afford maybe 250ish and would consider something second hand.
 
snow patrol said:
I tend to like doing manual focus and am trying to veer away form the 'auto' features on my camera, and am trying to do everything (aperture, exposure, focus etc) manually.
Click to expand...

Why? Just curious - what benefits do you get from using manual focus in general?

In terms of lenses - I'm not a nikon user so my only contribution will be to say try a 50mm f1.8 prime lens - all manufacturers sell them cheaply and they are great for portrait shots (on a cropped sensor), low light photography etc..
 
dowie said:
Why? Just curious - what benefits do you get from using manual focus in general?
Click to expand...

I've done a whole fortnight using nothing but a manual focus 50mm on my Olympus. You'll soon learn to quickly focus, maybe not as fast as a 7D in good light, but in low light condition, you'll focus quicker on your subjects (I did so at f2.8 and f4.0 with ease, f1.8 can be a tat bit harder if the subject is closer).

Anyway, the benefit of a Nikon is the F-mount lenses from the pre digital age. If you're looking to go full manual, why not grab a nice cheap but decent enough glass from that age. Somewhere around 30mm or wider, that way you'll get a 35-50mm range (at 35mm format) prime to learn.
 
Have a look at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4. Focuses down to 1:2 so usefully close and seems very good optically. Mine's almost the only lens I use on my D5000 (but I do have a D90 as well).


flattened.jpg
 
thanks for the responses guys. Regarding why i like using manual focus...i dunno really, i just prefer to focus EXACTLY where i want to focus, even if sometimes i end up with dodgy shots. For some reason i've just always preferred manual focus..can't help it!!

snappy - (still got that nec 20" btw?? ;) ) - i'm looking into that sigma you mentioned. Have read some good reviews and user comments so far. How much should i be looking to pay? I've seen it on the bay for about 240...does that seem about right?

It seems like it could be a good step up for me, and might encourage me to really get more into my photography.
 
For that money, I still recommend sticking with the Nikon kit style lenses, they are optically very good is their big advantage, build quality isn't terrific but it isn't totally shoddy either. Both 18-55 variants (VR and not) and the 18-70 (old now) are great value, the 16-85 is also optically strong and better built but is also rather expensive for what you get...

My advice would be grab a super cheap 18-55 again and save for something substantially better (the much liked Tamron is probably a good option there)
 
to be honest, it's not really a case of needing to save up...it's more that i don't really want to spend more than 250 on a lens at this point. Are you saying that the sigma 18-70 would offer me no noticeable improvement over the bundled nikon 18-55 that i had before? I'd like something better, but i don't want to fork out a shed load until i get good (if ever) and can really justify it.
 
snow patrol said:
snappy - (still got that nec 20" btw?? ;) ) - i'm looking into that sigma you mentioned. Have read some good reviews and user comments so far. How much should i be looking to pay? I've seen it on the bay for about 240...does that seem about right?

It seems like it could be a good step up for me, and might encourage me to really get more into my photography.
Click to expand...
Yes, still got the NEC, thanks. It's fine (apart from the power switch) but my antique 18.1" EIZO needs replacing.

I think I paid £329 retail for the Sigma but it was one of the first and T4 always gives me a good price, based on margin rather than RRP.
 
snow patrol said:
to be honest, it's not really a case of needing to save up...it's more that i don't really want to spend more than 250 on a lens at this point. Are you saying that the sigma 18-70 would offer me no noticeable improvement over the bundled nikon 18-55 that i had before? I'd like something better, but i don't want to fork out a shed load until i get good (if ever) and can really justify it.
Click to expand...

It depends what you want, it's slightly faster but I can't see it being substancially sharper - not a criticism, it's just the Nikon 18-55 is actually pretty good optically - the better reasons to replace it are if you want something faster or better built. In that case the tamron is faster across the range for a bit more money (And is reputedly nice and sharp too) and you won't get substancially better build without shelling out much more cash...
 
bigredshark said:
It depends what you want, it's slightly faster but I can't see it being substancially sharper - not a criticism, it's just the Nikon 18-55 is actually pretty good optically - the better reasons to replace it are if you want something faster or better built. In that case the tamron is faster across the range for a bit more money (And is reputedly nice and sharp too) and you won't get substancially better build without shelling out much more cash...
Click to expand...

thanks.

so out of interest, which is the much liked tamron?
 
Somebody will confirm but the 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC version) is the one which is talked about a lot. I can't speak from personal experience but so many people rate it it's a good bet...
 
Just to confirm, do you mean the Tamron A16 SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) - been reading up on it a bit and it seems like it could very well be the one for me. Found it new for £245 which is about what i was hoping to pay.

Would it be worth the extra £150 or so over the bog standard lens? :)
 
snow patrol said:
Just to confirm, do you mean the Tamron A16 SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) - been reading up on it a bit and it seems like it could very well be the one for me. Found it new for £245 which is about what i was hoping to pay.

Would it be worth the extra £150 or so over the bog standard lens? :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the one I believe. It's a constant f/2.8 lens covering a good range which is well reviewed and pretty sharp from the samples I've seen, by comparison the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I have which is spec and IQ wise very similar (just built like a tank) goes for £1k or so still - it's a good deal.
 
have bitten the bullet and ordered one for 245 quid. Hoping it will arrive next week and that it'll really get me more passionate about my photography. Thanks
 
snow patrol said:
Just to confirm, do you mean the Tamron A16 SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) - been reading up on it a bit and it seems like it could very well be the one for me. Found it new for £245 which is about what i was hoping to pay.

Would it be worth the extra £150 or so over the bog standard lens? :)
Click to expand...

It's worth it just for the constant f/2.8 (which is why i got it). Is it sharper than my 18-55 DX kit lens or my 28-80 kit lens...Mmm probably about the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom