# Which Lenses to Get With Nikon D3100 ?



## spiritfly

Hello all,

I'm glad that I have joined your community with my D3100 and I can start rolling 

I'm a beginner in photography and I just bought myself a Nikon D3100 with the standard 18-55mm VR lenses. As soon as I got it, I realized that there was a model with 18-105mm also VR lenses, but the price difference is about 140$. 

Considering I'm about to learn photography more as a hobby(at least for now) and I right now I really need it more for product photography, but I also want to learn to use it for landscapes, outdoor portraits as well as macro.

I could return the camera while it's new and get the one with the 18-105mm lens kit I know it is a better all around lens which is more of what I need as a starter, but I'm not sure if that will pay off, considering I'm only a beginner.

I know I won't invest that much in future in buying more expensive lenses, so do you think the switch is worth it?

Will I be better off with the 18-55mm for now while I get more into photography AND THEN get a better tele (like 55-200mm or maybe 70-300mm) or maybe get a prime lens (34mm, 50mm) for low light portraits with the money, or should I get the 18-105mm now ?


----------



## AUG19

How common are used Nikon lenses in Macedonia? I'd hang on to your 18-55 and look around for a 2nd lens. A prime.


----------



## spiritfly

AUG19 said:


> How common are used Nikon lenses in Macedonia? I'd hang on to your 18-55 and look around for a 2nd lens. A prime.


 
Well I'm not sure really, I don't have many contacts with other photographers, but I suppose they are more common than other brands. Why do you ask?

Thanks for you suggestion, I thought about a prime too, I know it is used for low light portraits, but I'm not sure why everybody says a 50mm is a must have, can you elaborate?


----------



## AUG19

Because you might want to buy one.


----------



## flatflip

I think you should definitely keep the 18-55. I have had (2) 18-55, one was VR and one was not. I loved them both for the the great image quality and the nice balanced ergonomics with the small body of a D40 and a D5000 (basicly like your D3100). I have a 18-105 now. I am very disappointed with the image quality. Sometimes the 18-105 is relatively sharp with good color, depending on the right exposure formula but I give up. All I know is the 18-55 was easy to make good pictures 90% of the time.


----------



## spiritfly

AUG19 said:


> Because you might want to buy one.


 
Which one? Yes I would like to buy one, but which one? 

Also it depends on the shipping fee, a lot of times there are cheaper lenses (or any other equipment) out there (in the us for ex.) but the shipping fee and custom fee(if any) makes it more expensive.


----------



## spiritfly

flatflip said:


> I think you should definitely keep the 18-55. I have had (2) 18-55, one was VR and one was not. I loved them both for the the great image quality and the nice balanced ergonomics with the small body of a D40 and a D5000 (basicly like your D3100). I have a 18-105 now. I am very disappointed with the image quality. Sometimes the 18-105 is relatively sharp with good color, depending on the right exposure formula but I give up. All I know is the 18-55 was easy to make good pictures 90% of the time.



You say the 18-55 is sharper? Isn't it supposed to the other way around, I read somewhere that 18-105 should be better at the middle ranges at least? Isn't it so?

Thanks for your input btw, much appreciated.


----------



## o hey tyler

AUG19 said:


> Because you might want to buy one.


 
Have you ever heard of the internet? It allows you to buy things on it, and have them shipped to you.


----------



## flatflip

spiritfly said:


> flatflip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should definitely keep the 18-55. I have had (2) 18-55, one was VR and one was not. I loved them both for the the great image quality and the nice balanced ergonomics with the small body of a D40 and a D5000 (basicly like your D3100). I have a 18-105 now. I am very disappointed with the image quality. Sometimes the 18-105 is relatively sharp with good color, depending on the right exposure formula but I give up. All I know is the 18-55 was easy to make good pictures 90% of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say the 18-55 is sharper? Isn't it supposed to the other way around, I read somewhere that 18-105 should be better at the middle ranges at least? Isn't it so?
> 
> Thanks for your input btw, much appreciated.
Click to expand...


The general rule for a zoom is; less is better. The more "purpose" they try to squeeze into a lens the more quality is sacrificed. Maybe the 18-105 is sharp in the middle, I just haven't isolated the sweet spot.


----------



## flatflip

I think the reason so many people recommend the 50mm is; It is very very sharp, very inexpensive, pretty decent focal length for portraits and not bad for a walk around lens. It's a good length for my 5 yr old granddaughter (full body portrait). I think longer would be better for me as I would like to do more upper body portraits but the price was right on the 50mm. 

You know the 50mm will not AF on the D3100 right? The 35mm will AF.

Edit; I forgot the main reasons I have a 50mm f/1.8 lens; Large aperture for great low light performance and nice shallow depth of field ( in other words, making the background of a subject blurry ).


----------



## spiritfly

Yeah, the 50mm is probably good also for those cool bokeh macro shots right? I would love one of those prime lenses, but I wish they were inexpensive as you say. I searched on ebay and the cheapes I could find was this:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G Lens

which is more than 500$  

I know about the autofocus compatibility, I think only AF-S lenses from the new G model series will autofocus on the D3100 right?

Could you point some inexpensive 50mm primes? And will I be able to focus manually, can it be learned by an amateur?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

35mm f1.8 DX, cheap and sharp


----------



## flatflip

Yes, you need AF-S to auto focus. Yes, you can easily learn to manually focus with a AF lens. The green in-focus light will light up in the viewfinder at "that" moment. I know the 50mm f/1.4 is kinda expensive but the AF 50mm f/1.8 D is not.

Edit; I too recommend the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 over the 50mm for your camera because it will auto focus. I was just trying to answer your questions about the 50mm.


----------



## AUG19

Exactly my point!



o hey tyler said:


> AUG19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you might want to buy one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of the internet? It allows you to buy things on it, and have them shipped to you.
Click to expand...


----------



## o hey tyler

Well then I guess how available lenses are in Macedonia is kind of irrelevant. Since both you and the OP know about the long hidden secret, known as "the internet".


----------



## AUG19

Free yourself of the negativity stemming from your drug habit.


----------



## o hey tyler

AUG19 said:


> Free yourself of the negativity stemming from your drug habit.


 
Free yourself of your lack of intelligence and respect for other members stemming from your ignorance. 

You've made yourself easily disliked by several members in shortly under a month here. 149 posts and not a single liked post. You seem to be on the right track. Good job! (Assuming that's what you were going for)


----------



## AUG19

spiritfly said:


> right now I really need it more for product photography, but I also want to learn to use it for landscapes, outdoor portraits as well as macro.



Which kind of products? Table-top or room size...? Outdoor portraits, 'macros' and isolated habitat shots within landscape can all be a lens around 80-105 but 'macro' lenses usually aren't so great for portraits with nicely rendered OOF (out of focus) backgrounds. One exception is a lens i posted here yesterday is the plastic fantastic Cosina 3.5/100 macro. Nikon made a 3.5-4.5 28-70 D which is a great, cheap zoom, can be used close-up and has a 9 blade ID which gives 'ok' bokeh in shape but not brilliant in terms of pattern.


----------



## spiritfly

Easy guys, if that's your way to impress newcomers it's not working m'kay? 

@AUG19 my products are mostly notebooks, computer motherboards and such, but I think the 18-55mm would be enough for that. I'm interested about that Cosina lens you mentioned, do you know where I can get one, and how much would it cost?

Of all the other photography styles I've numbered I don't know what exactly I want to do, so I accept suggestions as a beginner what style would be the best to begin with and which lens should be next on list?


----------



## Mike_E

Spiritfly, just use your camera for a while and then you'll be better able to tell which lens you need next.  (I've never been impressed with the 18-105mm btw)  And don't mind the nattering nabobs of negativity, some people get cranky when they don't get their spanky.


----------



## spiritfly

Mike_E said:


> Spiritfly, just use your camera for a while and then you'll be better able to tell which lens you need next.  (I've never been impressed with the 18-105mm btw)  And don't mind the nattering nabobs of negativity, some people get cranky when they don't get their spanky.


 
Thanks Mike_E, that's just what I'm gonna do! In the mean time I will post some amateur pictures to be laughed at!


----------



## D00B

Hello all, I'm new to this site and have one or two questions, regarding the original post, so I thought I would hijack this thread 

I too am new to the DSLR world and have picked myself a Nikon D3100 with a 18-55mm VR lens. However, I kinda wish I had bought another lens to go with it, for longer distance shots, 
so... here is my question......
Will a AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED fit and work with this camera?
perhaps a Nikon Nikkor 70-300 f/4~F5.5G??
or a NIKKOR AFS 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED VR

Could you please let me know which one I should be going for, being a newbie and all, I'm stumped.

Thanks in advance


----------



## flatflip

D00B said:


> Hello all, I'm new to this site and have one or two questions, regarding the original post, so I thought I would hijack this thread
> 
> I too am new to the DSLR world and have picked myself a Nikon D3100 with a 18-55mm VR lens. However, I kinda wish I had bought another lens to go with it, for longer distance shots,
> so... here is my question......
> Will a AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED fit and work with this camera?
> perhaps a Nikon Nikkor 70-300 f/4~F5.5G??
> or a NIKKOR AFS 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED VR
> 
> Could you please let me know which one I should be going for, being a newbie and all, I'm stumped.
> 
> Thanks in advance



Good question. I would recommend this one; NIKKOR AFS 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED VR, from your list. I have read at least one great extensive review and lots of customer / buyer reviews. Yes, it will work with your D3100 and you probably need the included VR with this model (or at least Vibration Reduction will be helpful). I found the 70-300 hard to make a good image without a tripod. I think the wide end (55mm-) of the 55-200 will be nice for walking around like on vacation.


----------



## MAF

2199 Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S Standard Auto Focus Nikkor Lens - U.S.A. Warranty
It'd be fun to zoom to 300mm, but unless you study birds, such shots will comprise a low percentage of your overall portfolio.  Most people take pictures of people they know and can approach if need be.  Get a prime lens that allows in enough light for interior shots that you don't have to throw a big flash upon them.   
I bought the linked lens and love it.  VR on it would've been great to take video at dawn without a tripod, but can't complain too much for the price.


----------



## tron

my answer to the thread title:

"all of them"


----------



## AlexisRhode34

I also would recommend you keep 18-55. I thought the image quality of 18-105 would be superior to the 18-55, i found images are not always sharp and sometimes color is not that good!


----------



## sudha

Hi, I'm new to this group. I've a similar question. I've a d3100 with 18-55mm lens. But i'm unable to get the pics the way I want...macro shots, shallow DOF. I wanted to know your view :

1. Is it that i'm unable to use my camera and lens (18-55) to the best? Or


2. Do I need to buy a new lens? which is suggested.

Thank You.


----------

