Prime vs Telephoto, suggestions?
I currently have the Nikon 18-105 kit lens, and am considering purchasing a second lens. I'm torn between the Nikon 35mm f1.8 and the Sigma 70-300 macro/telephoto lens. Any suggestions?
Here are the links:
Nikon 35mm
http://www.amazon.com/...00005LEN4/
Sigma 70-300
http://www.amazon.com/...0012X43P2/
Added (1). I apologize, I mistakenly stated I was interested in the 35mm, when I meant to say the 50mm. The links provided are accurate. Sorry, and thanks.
I thought sigma lenses only worked on canon!
Lenses are tools; we buy what we need unless we have deep pockets, then we buy and buy.
A macro lens is very nice, it rules the roost when it comes to taking close-up pictures of objects. The macro is optimized to project a life-size image on film or chip. Life-size is also called magnification 1 or ratio 1:1. A macro is slightly compromised when asked to take pictures of distance objects. I said, slightly compromised, unlikely you will see any degradation. The 70 - 300 covers with I think is the range you will find most useful.
We mount lenses based on the format size of the camera. Your camera sports a sensor chip that measures about 16mm height by 24mm length known as a compact digital sometimes called APS-C (Advanced Photo system Classic format. A normal lens for this format is 30mm. Such a lens delivers a 45⁰ angle of view with the camera held horizontal (landscape).
If we mount a lens 70% of "normal" = 20mm or shorter, the angle of view is said to be wide-angle. If we mount one 200% longer than "normal" = 60mm or longer, this is the region of telephoto.
Portrait photographers tend to gravitate to a lens 2x or 2.5x of "normal. That range is 60mm through 75mm. Such a lash up delivers portraits with little or no facial distortion. Your 18mm through 105mm delivers this perspective. It's only drawback is, the aperture it delivers is between f/5.6 through f/f/5.6. This is not a spectacular wide aperture, one might wish for more to reduce depth of field and to allow operation under super dim lighting conditions. However, all and all it delivers a lot.
The 70mm through 300mm covers a lot of telephoto territory. At max zoom of 300mm it delivers a view about equal to 300 ÷ 30 = 10 or better stated as 10x like a 10 power binocular. For me this would be the best.
The 50mm prime f/1.8 is a grand lens. However, it falls just short of the super portrait lens. Not too short because many use and love the 50mm with the compact digital. I still think, better to spend your money on the more versatile 70mm thru 300 and do some wild life work as well.
Firstly to slightly correct Alan - the 70-300mm will not be a true macro (1:1) lens. No zoom lens is.It'll be third or quarter life size at best. You need a prime lens for 1:1.
Secondly you make lens choices based on what you want to shoot. If you need the reach of the 300mm then get that. If you want the wide aperture of a prime (for low light or for shallow depth of field), then get that.
Not enough information. You give us no idea about what sort of photography you want to do. Examples: 70-300 is more use for wildlife than the 50; 50 is more useful for low-light action shots than the 70-300. If you can't choose, in the full knowledge of what your intentions are, how in the name of Saint Ansel do you expect a bunch of strangers to do it for you? Go away and have a nice lie down in a darkened room.