Looking at picking up a decent lens for my nikon?

[Flat Fifth Fury]

Don't be so easy to dismiss a "jack of all trades" lens like the 18-55. My main lens is my Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8. I do about 85% of my work with that. I have lots of other choices but for what I mostly shoot: news/editorial and location environmental portraiture this one lens fits the bill. That has the same angle of view range that your 18-55 has but is the bright/fast pro lens. Amateurs often believe that having more lens, especially on the telephoto end, gives them more flexibility but their photos rarely improve with the added range. Unless you are shooting sports or wildlife where long lenses are honestly necessary what normally happens is that rather than moving to where the composition works with a shorter lens the amateur will simply use their longer lens to crop into what they think is the picture. It makes them lazy and their compositions become flatter because of the perspective of long lenses and they stop moving about to find the right angle or interrelation of elements in the foreground, middle and background to make the picture interesting.

I was talking about this just the other day to a fellow pro shooter at an assignment and told her to spend ten minutes with her fixed 50mm lens and see what happens. She dusted the old lens off and about three minutes later she came over to me elated at how fresh everything was in comparison to her using the longer lenses. That's what often separates a "pro" from an amateur: "pro" photographers move about and use their feet to "zoom" and through that process explore the image and it's surroundings to find the right moment and composition while the amateur simply stands in one spot and moves the zoom ring about.

That rant aside you can find uses for longer lenses but if you are making images of people, landscapes or anything large like architecture wide to normal lenses are your friend.

 

[oroinvictus]

Don't be so easy to dismiss a "jack of all trades" lens like the 18-55. My main lens is my Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8. I do about 85% of my work with that. I have lots of other choices but for what I mostly shoot: news/editorial and location environmental portraiture this one lens fits the bill. That has the same angle of view range that your 18-55 has but is the bright/fast pro lens. Amateurs often believe that having more lens, especially on the telephoto end, gives them more flexibility but their photos rarely improve with the added range. Unless you are shooting sports or wildlife where long lenses are honestly necessary what normally happens is that rather than moving to where the composition works with a shorter lens the amateur will simply use their longer lens to crop into what they think is the picture. It makes them lazy and their compositions become flatter because of the perspective of long lenses and they stop moving about to find the right angle or interrelation of elements in the foreground, middle and background to make the picture interesting.

I was talking about this just the other day to a fellow pro shooter at an assignment and told her to spend ten minutes with her fixed 50mm lens and see what happens. She dusted the old lens off and about three minutes later she came over to me elated at how fresh everything was in comparison to her using the longer lenses. That's what often separates a "pro" from an amateur: "pro" photographers move about and use their feet to "zoom" and through that process explore the image and it's surroundings to find the right moment and composition while the amateur simply stands in one spot and moves the zoom ring about.

That rant aside you can find uses for longer lenses but if you are making images of people, landscapes or anything large like architecture wide to normal lenses are your friend.

+1

 

[arv_foh]

Don't be so easy to dismiss a "jack of all trades" lens like the 18-55. My main lens is my Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8. I do about 85% of my work with that. I have lots of other choices but for what I mostly shoot: news/editorial and location environmental portraiture this one lens fits the bill. That has the same angle of view range that your 18-55 has but is the bright/fast pro lens. Amateurs often believe that having more lens, especially on the telephoto end, gives them more flexibility but their photos rarely improve with the added range. Unless you are shooting sports or wildlife where long lenses are honestly necessary what normally happens is that rather than moving to where the composition works with a shorter lens the amateur will simply use their longer lens to crop into what they think is the picture. It makes them lazy and their compositions become flatter because of the perspective of long lenses and they stop moving about to find the right angle or interrelation of elements in the foreground, middle and background to make the picture interesting.

I was talking about this just the other day to a fellow pro shooter at an assignment and told her to spend ten minutes with her fixed 50mm lens and see what happens. She dusted the old lens off and about three minutes later she came over to me elated at how fresh everything was in comparison to her using the longer lenses. That's what often separates a "pro" from an amateur: "pro" photographers move about and use their feet to "zoom" and through that process explore the image and it's surroundings to find the right moment and composition while the amateur simply stands in one spot and moves the zoom ring about.

That rant aside you can find uses for longer lenses but if you are making images of people, landscapes or anything large like architecture wide to normal lenses are your friend.

The 28-70 2.8 is a $1300 lens though. FWIW I bought a 35mm f/1.8 to use at my wedding today and it worked out awesome. It can shoot on FX with minimal vignetting. I love both of my primes.

 

[Joematthews]

I actually disagree, I am pretty happy to dismiss my jack of all trades lens. It's neither wide, nor long, and IS is no match for a larger aperture in low light, which is presumably why you have an expensive as fuck F2.8 zoom and others buy fixed.

There's certainly a lot to be said for moving to get the right composition by changing perspective, but 55mm is not very long at all. I don't have a long lens and it really does limit what I can shoot to an enormous degree.

 

[Flat Fifth Fury]

Well Joe and all, if you need different equipment to make the images that you want that's totally fine. When I had to get a long lens to shoot pro sports I put out the $6,000 for a 300mm f/2.8 and then later put out $10,500 for a 400mm f/2.8 but only because I needed it for business. Otherwise I could have been happier with a cheaper, smaller, lighter lens option. If you need a long lens then get what you need. When I needed a seriously wide lens for architecture work I pulled out the $2,000 and bought a Nikon AF 14mm f/2.8 but again that's because it was filling a business need because otherwise I have absolutely no need for something like that for "normal" photography. A crazy wide lens like a 14mm or even a 20mm is very tricky to use well. That's why they don't bother making many point-n-shoot cameras with wide lenses - they are expensive to make and difficult to use. But I rarely see anyone who is equipped with a bottom of the line camera body actually "need" long or seriously wide lenses. Bottom of the line cameras are where you start learning to see and then begin building both your technique and vision and as those are defined you start building a set of tools to enable you to produce your intended final result.

This is much like the advice often given out on this forum: learn to use what you have to the best of it's and your ability first. Then if you still really need that expensive piece of gear, be it Neumann or Nikon, to get you to where you need to be you will have the experience and basic technique to be able to utilize its capacity well. There are a lot of guys here would can out track and mix my sorry azz with little more than an old Tascam PortaStudio4 and a few SM57's even if I was given Andy Sneap's studio to work with. Likewise I can out shoot a bunch of amateurs with a lot of gear that they don't understand if I am given only a good body and 50mm lens.

 

[Joematthews]

I know what you're saying. I'm just trying to play devils advocate really. I remember being told I didn't need a longer lens, I just needed to use my legs. Ken Rockwell is right about many things, but in my case, not getting a longer lens was stupid.

You're right that it's all about learning to use what you have. I learnt most of what I know on a wide angle, and it's actually my go to lens for "normal" photography and my shots would be completely different if I had spent more time on the kit lens. As a result, I'm shit at using the kit lens, but not a worse photographer, so it's all about learning to use one lens at a time and expanding once that focal length is comfortable.