Beginning w/ a Nikon D300: what lenses should I get/ should I buy accessories?

[Hight Fly]

Hi everyone,

Some of you might already know me, because I have only asked questions concerning this, but I'll now be more precise in my questions.

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

Now, I'm wondering which one I should get: my budget is around 300-350 euros. (Because I could then invest in a Prime Lens)

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80, but I realised it was too expensive for a beginner like me. I was then thinking: should I invest a bit of my money (now that I have limited my Lens Budget at 350 euros) in camera gear such as a very good tripod, or a stabilizer? I don't know anything about accessories, so feel free to guide me into this.

Regards,

HF

 

[Mystery member]

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80...

This seems to be almost identical to the question in your previous post.

A lens such as the Sigma 17-50mm won't help you with the longer focal lengths, but would be a good general purpose lens. Have you considered the Nikon 18-140mm zoom? Thus is quite a decent lens, particularly for travel.

It's almost certain that you'll find a use for the inexpensive 35mm f/1.8, so it wouldn't hurt to pick one up when the price is right. You can use the 50mm f/1.8 for portraits on DX, but if you are attracted to the 85mm f/1.8, just remember that it's not stabilised, and 85mm is rather "long" for hand-held shots in anything but good light.

My most frequently used lenses for DX Nikon are...

• 18-140mm for travel
• 35mm f/1.8 for general use, including group portraits
• 85m f/1.8 for portraits
• Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (only used on my D3200 backup camera)

If I were buying a Nikon DSLR at this stage, I'd forget about all the rest and just get the 16-80mm.

Don't get carried away with the fact that prime lenses often have large maximum apertures; this is a common beginner's error.

 

[SoCalWill]

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend?

The Sigma is the sharpness + stabilization winner there.

should I invest a bit of my money (now that I have limited my Lens Budget at 350 euros) in camera gear such as a very good tripod, or a stabilizer?

You would only need a tripod for long exposure/night shots; for a beginner with a modest sized lens, a sub-$100 tripod is fine. You can spend more when you get bigger lenses and/or shoot in adverse conditions.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Hi everyone,

Hi. I followed you here....

As I noted in your first thread, I used a D300 for about 10 years. It's a very good camera.

Some of you might already know me, because I have only asked questions concerning this, but I'll now be more precise in my questions.

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

I have 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes. The only one of these that I used much on the D300 was the 85; it's an excellent portrait lens and extremely sharp.

Now, I'm wondering which one I should get: my budget is around 300-350 euros. (Because I could then invest in a Prime Lens)

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

My main lens was the 16-85. It's quite sharp until about 75mm. The Sigma and Tamron lenses have a narrower zoom range, which I would find a limitation. I don't know how good they are.

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

The 16-85 would cover all of these although it's at its weakest for portraits because it's slow in the telephoto range and has an unpleasant rendering of out-of-focus areas. That's why I got the 85mm prime.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80, but I realised it was too expensive for a beginner like me. I was then thinking: should I invest a bit of my money (now that I have limited my Lens Budget at 350 euros) in camera gear such as a very good tripod, or a stabilizer? I don't know anything about accessories, so feel free to guide me into this.

I typically use a tripod for landscapes. It really makes a difference in sharpness, although you can get away with a lot if your lens is stabilized. A very good tripod would eat up your whole budget but you should be able to get something useful for 100 euros. The thing you also want to get with a tripod is a remote release so you don't shake the camera when you take the picture. Nikon charges an excessive amount for theirs but there are third-party ones which are more reasonable.

If you are planning to do much interior photography, you should get an auxiliary flash. The built-in flash, like all such devices, generates truly ugly lighting. I have a Nikon flash but there are apparently much cheaper third-party units that work well. You need to get one that has an articulating head for bounce flash.

Don't get "protection" or UV filters unless you take pictures where there's flying dust or salt spray (I often do). You may want a polarizing filter for landscapes but I hardly ever use one.

 

[SoCalWill]

If you are planning to do much interior photography, you should get an auxiliary flash.

That's a good point, I'm in a lot more indoor event situations where I need to get pictures of people and goings-on than I am long exposure scenarios where the camera has to be predictably mounted; it comes down to what you shoot of course, but the basic £50 Yongnuo gives you unlimited indoor shooting possibilities..

 

[Badwater]

It depends on what your style of shooting is. If you haven't decided what your going to photograph, you don't really need any lenses. If you're just starting out as a fresh beginner, get a lens like the 18-55 and save your cash for the lens you'll need for the type of photography you plan to do.

But if you're just buying lenses just to have them. Start with the cheapest primes. Get several of them. Then save up for the value zoom lenses. There are many to choose from. And look online for very old lenses that will fit the Nikon mount. Your D300 has a AF motor drive to assist. So you can use just about any Nikon lens of the past. And there are some real good deals to be had.

 

[Bob]

The D300 is a great camera. I used to have it. It has all the same menu and controls as its bigger brothers.

People say that prime lenses are "better" than zooms. Perhaps that used to be true, but I recently did a brick wall test comparing my 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes against my new Nikon 24-85mm (FX) zoom lens. The zoom was as good or better at all apertures. So, in my honest and humble opinion, there's no reason for a beginner to carry around multiple lenses. Just get the 18-200 zoom or the 16-85 zoom for your DX camera. Personally, I'd go for the extra wide angle of the 16-85.

There is one reason to get a prime - that is if you really want to make a shot with a very shallow depth of field and really need an f/1.4 .

 

[Hight Fly]

Hi everyone,

Hi. I followed you here....

As I noted in your first thread, I used a D300 for about 10 years. It's a very good camera.

Some of you might already know me, because I have only asked questions concerning this, but I'll now be more precise in my questions.

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

I have 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes. The only one of these that I used much on the D300 was the 85; it's an excellent portrait lens and extremely sharp.

Now, I'm wondering which one I should get: my budget is around 300-350 euros. (Because I could then invest in a Prime Lens)

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

My main lens was the 16-85. It's quite sharp until about 75mm. The Sigma and Tamron lenses have a narrower zoom range, which I would find a limitation. I don't know how good they are.

I really think getting the 16-85.

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

The 16-85 would cover all of these although it's at its weakest for portraits because it's slow in the telephoto range and has an unpleasant rendering of out-of-focus areas. That's why I got the 85mm prime.

Yes that is what I thought.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80, but I realised it was too expensive for a beginner like me. I was then thinking: should I invest a bit of my money (now that I have limited my Lens Budget at 350 euros) in camera gear such as a very good tripod, or a stabilizer? I don't know anything about accessories, so feel free to guide me into this.

I typically use a tripod for landscapes. It really makes a difference in sharpness, although you can get away with a lot if your lens is stabilized. A very good tripod would eat up your whole budget but you should be able to get something useful for 100 euros. The thing you also want to get with a tripod is a remote release so you don't shake the camera when you take the picture. Nikon charges an excessive amount for theirs but there are third-party ones which are more reasonable.

Any tripod brands you recommend? Or generally, things to look at when buying a tripod?

If you are planning to do much interior photography, you should get an auxiliary flash. The built-in flash, like all such devices, generates truly ugly lighting. I have a Nikon flash but there are apparently much cheaper third-party units that work well. You need to get one that has an articulating head for bounce flash.

I'll check that too.

Don't get "protection" or UV filters unless you take pictures where there's flying dust or salt spray (I often do). You may want a polarizing filter for landscapes but I hardly ever use one.

Thanks for the bits of advice! Especially coming from someone who is experienced with this camera like you!

 

[Hight Fly]

If you are planning to do much interior photography, you should get an auxiliary flash.

That's a good point, I'm in a lot more indoor event situations where I need to get pictures of people and goings-on than I am long exposure scenarios where the camera has to be predictably mounted; it comes down to what you shoot of course, but the basic £50 Yongnuo gives you unlimited indoor shooting possibilities..

I'll check this one then! If it is good quality for the price, then it seems awesome.

Looks like a good investment!

 

[Hight Fly]

It depends on what your style of shooting is. If you haven't decided what your going to photograph, you don't really need any lenses. If you're just starting out as a fresh beginner, get a lens like the 18-55 and save your cash for the lens you'll need for the type of photography you plan to do.

But if you're just buying lenses just to have them. Start with the cheapest primes. Get several of them. Then save up for the value zoom lenses. There are many to choose from. And look online for very old lenses that will fit the Nikon mount. Your D300 has a AF motor drive to assist. So you can use just about any Nikon lens of the past. And there are some real good deals to be had.

I think that as a beginner it'd be more convenient for me to get a Zoom lens.

Indeed, I am not experienced enough to see when I should use a specific prime etc.

Thanks for your pieces of advice though. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Hight Fly]

The D300 is a great camera. I used to have it. It has all the same menu and controls as its bigger brothers.

Good to know!

People say that prime lenses are "better" than zooms. Perhaps that used to be true, but I recently did a brick wall test comparing my 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes against my new Nikon 24-85mm (FX) zoom lens. The zoom was as good or better at all apertures. So, in my honest and humble opinion, there's no reason for a beginner to carry around multiple lenses. Just get the 18-200 zoom or the 16-85 zoom for your DX camera. Personally, I'd go for the extra wide angle of the 16-85.

That is indeed what I think I will do. Seems like a good budget lens when bought used.

There is one reason to get a prime - that is if you really want to make a shot with a very shallow depth of field and really need an f/1.4 .

Yes for portraits I thought I'll take one. Everyone recommends the 85mm but it is relatively expensive though! (I'd take the 1.8)

 

[Hight Fly]

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend?

The Sigma is the sharpness + stabilization winner there.

Thanks for the feedback. However, I think that the Nikon, by giving me an extra focal-length range, will give me more possibilities. As a beginner, I think that the difference in sharpness between the Sigma and the Nikon is not that big to make me take the Sigma, as I am just a beginner and thus will still be more than pleased by the sharpness of the Nikon.

What do you think of the Sigma 17-70 though?

should I invest a bit of my money (now that I have limited my Lens Budget at 350 euros) in camera gear such as a very good tripod, or a stabilizer?

You would only need a tripod for long exposure/night shots; for a beginner with a modest sized lens, a sub-$100 tripod is fine. You can spend more when you get bigger lenses and/or shoot in adverse conditions.

Do you recommend any in particular?

 

[Hight Fly]

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80...

This seems to be almost identical to the question in your previous post.

A lens such as the Sigma 17-50mm won't help you with the longer focal lengths, but would be a good general purpose lens. Have you considered the Nikon 18-140mm zoom? Thus is quite a decent lens, particularly for travel.

I haven't, but I do not see very good reviews of it :/

What do you think about the 24-120mm? It is a little bit over the budget I gave but that is manageable if it is a really good lens for the price (400 euros).

It's almost certain that you'll find a use for the inexpensive 35mm f/1.8, so it wouldn't hurt to pick one up when the price is right. You can use the 50mm f/1.8 for portraits on DX, but if you are attracted to the 85mm f/1.8, just remember that it's not stabilised, and 85mm is rather "long" for hand-held shots in anything but good light.

My most frequently used lenses for DX Nikon are...

• 18-140mm for travel
• 35mm f/1.8 for general use, including group portraits
• 85m f/1.8 for portraits
• Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 (only used on my D3200 backup camera)

If I were buying a Nikon DSLR at this stage, I'd forget about all the rest and just get the 16-80mm.

Don't get carried away with the fact that prime lenses often have large maximum apertures; this is a common beginner's error.

 

[Valps]

The D300 is a great camera. I used to have it. It has all the same menu and controls as its bigger brothers.

Good to know!

People say that prime lenses are "better" than zooms. Perhaps that used to be true, but I recently did a brick wall test comparing my 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes against my new Nikon 24-85mm (FX) zoom lens. The zoom was as good or better at all apertures. So, in my honest and humble opinion, there's no reason for a beginner to carry around multiple lenses. Just get the 18-200 zoom or the 16-85 zoom for your DX camera. Personally, I'd go for the extra wide angle of the 16-85.

That is indeed what I think I will do. Seems like a good budget lens when bought used.

There is one reason to get a prime - that is if you really want to make a shot with a very shallow depth of field and really need an f/1.4 .

Yes for portraits I thought I'll take one. Everyone recommends the 85mm but it is relatively expensive though! (I'd take the 1.8)

I indeed see it this way. Thanks for sharing.

From my many years of experience with the D300, D300s, and 16-85mm lens, I confirm the usefulness of this lens instead of prime lens. My prime lenses are used for special situations and almost never for walking around and general shooting. The 16-80 is probably a better lens but too expensive. I'd go for a used 16-85 if you can get one that's in very good condition with no problems. Or find a good deal on a new one. If need a very fast lens along with the zoom, get the 35/1.8 DX or 50/1.8 DX. Either the 50mm or 85mm will be good for portraits and blurred backgrounds. After the 16-85mm zoom, your second lens could be a 70-200 F4 lens, and you can use that for portraits.

 

[Hight Fly]

The D300 is a great camera. I used to have it. It has all the same menu and controls as its bigger brothers.

Good to know!

People say that prime lenses are "better" than zooms. Perhaps that used to be true, but I recently did a brick wall test comparing my 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes against my new Nikon 24-85mm (FX) zoom lens. The zoom was as good or better at all apertures. So, in my honest and humble opinion, there's no reason for a beginner to carry around multiple lenses. Just get the 18-200 zoom or the 16-85 zoom for your DX camera. Personally, I'd go for the extra wide angle of the 16-85.

That is indeed what I think I will do. Seems like a good budget lens when bought used.

There is one reason to get a prime - that is if you really want to make a shot with a very shallow depth of field and really need an f/1.4 .

Yes for portraits I thought I'll take one. Everyone recommends the 85mm but it is relatively expensive though! (I'd take the 1.8)

I indeed see it this way. Thanks for sharing.

From my many years of experience with the D300, D300s, and 16-85mm lens, I confirm the usefulness of this lens instead of prime lens. My prime lenses are used for special situations and almost never for walking around and general shooting. The 16-80 is probably a better lens but too expensive. I'd go for a used 16-85 if you can get one that's in very good condition with no problems. Or find a good deal on a new one. If need a very fast lens along with the zoom, get the 35/1.8 DX or 50/1.8 DX. Either the 50mm or 85mm will be good for portraits and blurred backgrounds. After the 16-85mm zoom, your second lens could be a 70-200 F4 lens, and you can use that for portraits.

Thanks for the advice.

I've just found out that there is a 24-120mm lens. I have seen it is possible to get it in good condition for 400 euros.

What do you think of that? It could be a good compromise between the two enses (16-85/70-200).

Other than than, you confirm what I planned to do.

I'll continue a bit my researches but that might be the solution.

 

[Mystery member]

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80...

This seems to be almost identical to the question in your previous post.

A lens such as the Sigma 17-50mm won't help you with the longer focal lengths, but would be a good general purpose lens. Have you considered the Nikon 18-140mm zoom? Thus is quite a decent lens, particularly for travel.

I haven't, but I do not see very good reviews of it.

Mine is very good.

What do you think about the 24-120mm? It is a little bit over the budget I gave but that is manageable if it is a really good lens for the price (400 euros).

24mm may be a bit long for general use on DX. (24-120mm is kit lens for FX).

Make sure about the version of the lens before buying...

Loading…

photographylife.com

 

[Leonard Migliore]

I've just found out that there is a 24-120mm lens. I have seen it is possible to get it in good condition for 400 euros.

What do you think of that? It could be a good compromise between the two lenses (16-85/70-200).

There are a couple of 24-120 Nikkors. I have the newest one, which is a constant f/4. I use this on my D750. There is an older variable-aperture (f/3.5-f/5.6) version that is not supposed to be so good.

I haven't used the 24-120 on my D300 but I suspect it would work OK. It's quite a bit bigger than the 16-85 and, of course, doesn't go as wide.

 

[Hight Fly]

I've just found out that there is a 24-120mm lens. I have seen it is possible to get it in good condition for 400 euros.

What do you think of that? It could be a good compromise between the two lenses (16-85/70-200).

There are a couple of 24-120 Nikkors. I have the newest one, which is a constant f/4. I use this on my D750. There is an older variable-aperture (f/3.5-f/5.6) version that is not supposed to be so good.

I was talking about the F4 one sorry.

I haven't used the 24-120 on my D300 but I suspect it would work OK. It's quite a bit bigger than the 16-85 and, of course, doesn't go as wide.

That is true. But I could zoom more though.

Would you mind trying it and tell me what your results/thoughts on it are?

 

[Valps]

I've just found out that there is a 24-120mm lens. I have seen it is possible to get it in good condition for 400 euros.

What do you think of that? It could be a good compromise between the two lenses (16-85/70-200).

There are a couple of 24-120 Nikkors. I have the newest one, which is a constant f/4. I use this on my D750. There is an older variable-aperture (f/3.5-f/5.6) version that is not supposed to be so good.

I haven't used the 24-120 on my D300 but I suspect it would work OK. It's quite a bit bigger than the 16-85 and, of course, doesn't go as wide.

On a full frame camera like the D750, a 24-120 is a very good range.
But on a crop sensor camera like the D300, it's like a 36-180 on a full frame camera.
36mm not wide enough for your us. 85mm on a D300 is aboug 127mm on a full frame camera. Stick with 16mm on the wide end.

 

[TacticDesigns]

I want to begin with a zoom, to see which focal length I use the most, and then buy a prime lens. For instance, if I think I use more an 85mm, I'll consider buying this prime lens. It could be a 35 or 50mm too.

I have considered a Sigma 17-50, a Tamron 17-50, and a Nikon 16-85. What do you recommend? Or are there other lenses that would suit me better?

I intend to do a bit of everything: landscapes, streetscape, portraits... To then see what I like the most.

Now onto my second question:

I first wanted to buy a 16-80...

This seems to be almost identical to the question in your previous post.

A lens such as the Sigma 17-50mm won't help you with the longer focal lengths, but would be a good general purpose lens. Have you considered the Nikon 18-140mm zoom? Thus is quite a decent lens, particularly for travel.

I haven't, but I do not see very good reviews of it.

Mine is very good.

What do you think about the 24-120mm? It is a little bit over the budget I gave but that is manageable if it is a really good lens for the price (400 euros).

24mm may be a bit long for general use on DX. (24-120mm is kit lens for FX).

+1

24mm would be great on a full frame camera, which this lens is aimed at.

But it depends on what you intend to do with it.

But . . . that is what the OP is about. What first lens?

IMHO . . . get an old Nikon 18-135mm superzoom. (Or the new 18-140 superzoom).

The 18mm at the wide end will make it a more versatile lens.

And the long range will let you really explore what focal lengths you end up needing.

I have an 18-135mm that I picked up used when I got my Nikon D5100. I knew I wanted longer than the 18-55 kit lens that came with my camera.

Actually, the first lens I got for my D5100 was a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom. But that was to get indoor sports shots of my daughter at cheer competitions. So at the distance I would be at shooting, I kinda suspected that I could make 28mm at the wide end work for that.

But . . . for everything else, like vacation and such . . . I knew I wanted wider than 28mm.

The Nikon 18-135mm was my quick way to cover a wide range of focal lengths as needed.

And . . . I still have and use that lens a lot.

It is on my Nikon D5100 right now, with a 35mm f/1.8 in a side pocket of my sling bag.

Take care & Happy Shooting!

Make sure about the version of the lens before buying...

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr