Getting back into photgraphy

phog

Intro - was a fairly frequent poster here in the late 00's but my camera died a death and I was involved in a few other past times at the time so never bothered to replace it and the Android Phone made it easy to capture a few snaps but never fulfilled my craving for a great photo.

Anyway, I recently got a Nikon D750 and currently using the old (cheapish kit) lens (18-70mm & 55-200mm) that I had but I'd like some advice on what I should treat myself to - in particular I'd like a good general lens for family get togethers, taking some nice images with some depth of field and I'd like one for macro or at least be able to take a close up of flowers or such like.

CelticRambler

As a general, all-purpose lens, I regularly fall back on the 18-135mm EFS when (for whatever reason) I don't want to carry more than one lens with me. It's been up hill and down dale with me for several years now, everything from solo Alpine hikes to multi-family gatherings, in the unforgiving sun on safari and begging for more iso while traipsing the streets at night.

Even though I worked my way through a wishlist of lenses when I took up "proper" photography again after a long break, this one wasn't on the list. It came as sweetener with a second body a few years ago, but it's probably got more use than all the others put together and validated the dictum "the best camera is the one you've got with you" because it made the DSLR almost as easy to have on hand as the phone.

Heebie

Tamron makes a 28-300mm lens.
Its not particularly fast or sharp, but it's quite versatile.
They also make some others. I think they have a 17-200.
They also have a nice 90mm 1:1 macro that's a really good lens. No zoom, but fast, sharp, and true macro.. price point is good on the ones above.

Their 17-70 and 70-300 as a pair are good, but bulky to carry together.
The 90mm is about the same length as the 70-300 when it's but extended. The 28-300 is actually pretty small. Good for carrying around.

I don't know if they Nikon is full frame or not. If not.. getting down to 17mm might make sense.

I hope you find a lens or two that you enjoy shooting with.

magicbastarder

phog wrote: »

taking some nice images with some depth of field

some depth of field or little depth of field?

phog

magicbastarder wrote: »

some depth of field or little depth of field?

Where items/people in the background are out if focus but still part of the picture.

Hope I'm describing it correctly

magicbastarder

sure - you're looking for a lens with a decent max aperture. you're much more likely to get that on a prime lens; i think the aperture on the 90mm lens Heebie mentioned is f2.8, which is not bad.
i think the low hanging fruit here is a 50mm f1.8 - won't give you macro functionality, but is a great all rounder and good shallow depth of field, also quite affordable.

Adrian.Sadlier

Before I post my "tuppence" worth, a quick question. Nikon D750 or Canon D750. I am a Nikon shooter.

phog

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

Before I post my "tuppence" worth, a quick question. Nikon D750 or Canon D750. I am a Nikon shooter.

Nikon D750 - didn't know there was a Canon D750

CelticRambler

phog wrote: »

Nikon D750 - didn't know there was a Canon D750

The Canon is, to be pendantic, a 750D - but not everyone gets their letters and numbers round the right way! :rolleyes:

My info above relates to a Canon lens, but its interest from a practical point of view lies in the range of focal lengths. I've found it particularly good for family gatherings, where the best candid photos need to be taken faster than you can organise a text-book perfect set-up - so wide-angle for spontaneous group shots in tight spaces, and a reasonable zoom for "close-ups" of people at the far end of a long table.

For the great outdoors, it's more a question of transportability - one lens to carry (and/or have stolen/get damaged) rather than several, particularly when photography isn't the principal reason for the trip.