Top products from r/Nikon

We found 101 product mentions on r/Nikon. We ranked the 369 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Nikon:

u/kylake · 1 pointr/Nikon

Hi, this is a rather interesting question! First of, congratulations on your decision to get the D7100! There are plenty of Nikon Len(s) to choose from and given that you might eventually head towards more wildlife and landscape kind of photography you will need mainly 2 kinds of lens. This is based on my opinion and the thoughts may vary differently across different photographers.

Wildlife Lens:

  1. Get something with a wider focal range. For starts you should aim for something that is at least 100m-200m. If you are really serious about it there are prime lenses such as the Nikon 300m f2.8 and the Nikon 500m f4 that being said prime lenses with a lower aperture will definitely cost a lot more.

  2. Take into consideration whether you prefer a zoom or prime.

  3. If you are going for a zoom, for starts, you might want to consider the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 which can be doubled up as a really good portrait lens.

  4. The 70-200m above as mentioned is super versatile and 1 of the 3 "trinity lens for Nikon", the other 2 being the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lens.

  5. I really recommend getting the 70-200mm as you might end up saving a lot of money at the end of the day; go straight for the cream.

    Landscape Lens:

  6. This kind of lens varies a lot from other lenses as it might differ from photographer to photographer how wide is a wide lens and what kind of landscape you might want to take.

  7. Judging based on your question on the quality wise, I own a Nikon 24mm f1.4 and the quality of the photos that come out are splendid. I personally choose Prime over Zoom as I seek for quality imo.

  8. A 35mm prime is another option as well as it doubles up as a very good lens for portrait and street photography. Another way to counter an issue with the "wideness" of the lens is to be skilful at Stitching Photos which can be referred to from here at Adobe Photoshop.

  9. This method can greatly allow you to save up on money and be a more versatile photographer at home/work if you don't mind the hassle of editing and stitching the photos up.

  10. An ideal lens would be anything below 24mm if you really want to capture as much detail of the landscape as possible.

    Quality of Lens:

  11. There are many levels of quality which Nikon has to offer and of which are mainly differentiated by the kind of glass/plastic or in other words materials they use for their lens.

  12. Types of Lens

  13. Quality as well varies between the user, do you want something which has auto focus or manual focus might be one of the first questions you ask.

  14. If you've decided on that, and judging from what I see, you are seeking for under $200 for something used. In my opinion you should get the 24mm prime if you have got enough money to spare. Get one of the basic Nikon 50mm - its like nearly every Nikon photographer has this correct me if I am wrong

  15. Alternatively you can check out this link: for some of the top picks people have.


  16. If you are seeking for an everyday lens, get one of the standard zoom lens for your D7100.

  17. If you are aiming to upgrade to a full-frame camera in the future, it might be more ideal to get the fx lenses, like what I've mentioned the 14-24, 24-70 or 70-200.

  18. For wildlife and landscape at the same time, for the budget you've mentioned, I recommend the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6

  19. One Of The Sources

    I hope some of my basic insights can narrow down your choice of lens and help you understand better based on the sources I have provided, alternatively you might wanna check youtube out too for extra information, there are lots of peeps there who do reviews :)
u/GenericStatement · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Under $350, you really can't do much in the way of upgrading to a better telephoto lens, so I'd stick with the 70-300.

The 18-55 is good for landscapes. What you really need is a tripod for it. You can get a great one for about $150 these days, and the monopod part would help with sports, probably. But the real trick to landscape photography is actually not about the camera or the lens, since you're usually stopping down the lens to f/8 or f/11 and so even a mediocre lens will give you good images. The trick is that it takes a lot of discipline, mainly in getting up early or staying out late, because the few hours after sunrise and the few hours before sunset give you the best light, that is, the "golden hours". There are also the "blue hours" immediately before sunrise and after sunset. The second part of the discipline, besides the timing, is the repetition. You may have an awesome shot, but then it's cloudy, or the light isn't right, or whatever. Some of the great landscape photographers visit a spot dozens of times before they get "the shot". A lens, a camera, and a tripod, and lots of discipline.

The 35/1.8 AF-S DX is a good lens to start with and you can pick one up used for around $120. You can also get a 50/1.8 AF-S for about $150 used, or $220 new, which is a great portrait lens on your camera. These lenses let in much more light (about 8x as much as your 18-55 does at 35 and 50mm) and also allow you to create more blurred backgrounds. I like the 50 much better than the 35 for portraits; for me the 35 is too wide to be flattering unless you're doing an environmental portrait and including a good deal of the room/environment around the person (and if that's the case, just use your 18-55, since you'll want more depth of field (less background blur) to include the details of the environment.)

So yeah, if it were me, I'd get a good tripod/monopod like the link above for landscapes, and the 50/1.8 AF-S for portraits. That's about $300 right there if you get the lens used; there's tons of them on eBay or if eBay scares you, KEH has them in EX+ condition for $150 too. Buying lenses new is one of the biggest wastes of money you can do in photography (and it was a lesson I didn't really learn until I'd spent thousands!)

u/anish714 · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I was in a similar position about 3 years ago. But then it was either the D3100 or the D5100. I chose the D5100. I chose it due to the higher ISO capability. I loved my decision. It was a much better camera than the 3100. I tried my buddy's 3100 and my 5100 side by side and mine outperformed 3100 significantly. The location was a dinner party at a restaurant. I was able to easily pull of images in low light he was not able to get. Also, the additional features helped me learn photography better. To me the 3100 seems like an advanced point and shoot camera with SLR capability. The 5100 gave me very good pictures, kept me interested, and kept me growing in photography for the last 3 years where the 3100 would have bored and disappointed me with photography in couple of months. Honestly, today, I am disappointed I just didn't go for a D7000. If I would have gotten the D7000, I believe I would have been satisfied for another year or two before upgrading. But it was my first DSLR and I wanted to learn how to shoot manual. I wanted to tip my toes in the water first before spending lots of $$$.

Yesterday, I just upgraded my 5100 to a D750. I was between the D7100, D610 and the D750. I figured why the heck not... I wanted something that can keep me satisfied for the next 5 years. Rather than constantly have my body go out of date then wanting to upgrade again.

To see what kind of pictures the D5100 can take, look here.
I am sure the D5300 will perform much better.

I highly recommend getting the Tamron 2.8 28-75 lens and skipping the kit lense. The Tamron 2.8 was my first lens purchase. All pictures you see above was taken with it. It will be the lense you may need for a while, unless you need a super zoom.
You can get it new for $500
or used < $400.

It is an FX lens and you can still use if if you decide to make the jump to FX later like I did. Even if you buy DX now, I suggest you still by FX lenses. I have only purchased 2 lenses over the last 3 years, but they have been very good lenses. They will serve me much longer than the bodies. If you do not want to spent that much on new lenses right now and want to get the kit lense (which I highly don't recommend), wait few months and get the 50mm prime lense. Its an excellent lense and you can use it on FX camera's as well. I am planning on this to be my next purchase after I get over the D750 sticker shock.

Edit: I also jumped from a Canon Powershot to Nikon DSLR. I have really enjoyed Nikon as they just felt better in my hands. Also D7000+ bodies has a built in motor so you can buy older lenses much cheaper.

Edit 2: Best Buy has a great deal going on now for a D7000 and a zoom lens for $800 bucks.

Edit 3: Scratch that. You may want to take a look at this...

u/nematoadjr · 2 pointsr/Nikon

I think you are pretty good, I would pair down as others said rather then fill up. I would definitely leave the 50mm at home. Then if you think you would use it less the 20% of the time leave the Tokina behind since the coverage/aperture is pretty well covered by your 18-300. I love my Tokina but I really don't use it as much as I think so it's just weight in the bag.

You say you aren't concerned about weight but I always regret a lens by the end of a long day of walking around. I also often bring the lenses with me but then leave it in the hotel room, that way my fear of missing a lens is assuaged.

You didn't list it but I assume a charger in there, I got a small USB based one that is easier to manage then the bulky one you get with the camera for like 10 bucks that does the trick and it plugs into a big 4 port USB AC adapter with a Euro Plug that I got which let's me charge phones and ipads at the same time from one socket.

If $500 is burning a hole in your pocket. The one thing I sometimes carry with me is a a Point and Shoot or a little mirrorless. I have a OM-D EM 10 with a Panasonic 20mm 1.7 pancake that fits in my wife's purse for when we go out to dinner. Don't want to show up at a fancy restaurant looking like a tourist. Only to wish you could get a shot of the square outside. In fact one of my favorite shots I took in Croatia was like this and it's hanging on my wall right now. However nowadays I usually even leave that at the hotel because my phone can do almost the same thing.

Also you may want to look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 walk around lens which can be had for 200-300 bucks and that could replace the 1.8's and the Tokina. Sure it's not as good as 1.8 but you get a fair amount of light and shave 3 lenses from your kit.

That $500 is better spent on a few great dinners for you and your wife, or a day trip to a different city IMHO.

Also, my wife and I have a new policy where at least one day of the trip I leave the camera gear in the hotel and just use my phone. It allows me to enjoy the day and spend time with her and my Daughter and not my gear. I really recommend it. The world doesn't NEED your personal take on Vienna : )

u/see_dee · 1 pointr/Nikon is a good resource for info. There are literally tons of online resources, blogs, videos, etc scattered across the web.

Definitely read the manual as the D7100 is an intense camera for someone unfamiliar with DSLRs (good choice though, I love mine).

Try to use manual settings as often as possible. You'll definitely want to understand the shutter and aperture relationship...they're like peas and carrots.

As for baby pics, check out out the nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D lens. It's very affordable and you'll love the shallow depth of field at f/1.8. The lenses you have will be great. Here is some info on aperture and depth of field:

Here's a link for the nikkor 50mm lens on amazon:

Here is a bit on prime lenses vs zoom lenses:

Eventually you'll want a tripod.

Shoot lots of pictures.

Do you have photoshop or Lightroom? RAW files are extremely awesome:

Pretend you're the paparazzi with friends, not strangers.

Have fun and be creative.

u/burning1rr · 8 pointsr/Nikon

The D3300 can absolutely take great depth of field (DOF) photographs, but it does help to have the right lens.

Here's something I happened to shoot on a hike. This was shot with a d5300, which has the same sensor and crop factor as your D3300. I used the Nikkor 35mm F1.8 prime lens, which is excellent for DOF work.

Here are some hints:

  • Use Aperture Priority mode (A). The wider your aperture, the shorter your depth of field.
  • Use the widest aperture possible^1. With the kit lenses this usually means f3.5-f5.5, depending on focal length.
  • Move closer to your subject (closer subject means shorter DOF)
  • Put more distance between your subject and the background (background will be more out of focus.)
  • If you want to shoot portraits at 55mm, use the 55-200 lens not the 18-55. The 55-200 is faster than the 18-55 at 55mm^2.

    A longer focal length will tend to reduce DOF, but with the kit lens zoom will reduce aperture. Longer focal length also means that you'll need to stand further away from the subject to get the framing correct. Distance increases DOF.

    Try using the kit 18-55mm lens at about 35mm and open the aperture wide. Move the subject away from the background. Chose a background with some texture that contrasts against your subject. Make sure the background is far behind the subject.

    If you want to take DOF shots, a faster lens helps immensely. For landscape and group photography, the Nikkor DX 35mm f1.8 lens is a great bet. For shooting portraits, consider the Nikkor FX 50mm f1.8 prime. Both cost $200, and are absolutely worth the price.

    I recommend the 50mm for portrait photos because the zoom helps move you away from your subject. A face/shoulder shot with the 35mm will tend to distort the subjects features. 80-100mm is generally considered a good distance for portrait photography, but the fast 100mm lenses are much more expensive than the 50mm prime.

    One other hint... Consider enabling Auto-ISO on your camera. Getting Auto-ISO right takes patience, but it makes shooting much easier once it's set correctly. Mine is tuned so that ISO stays at 100 normally, but increases to keep the shutter speed at a minimum of 1/50.

    ^1 This doesn't always apply to extremely fast lenses. The 35mm f1.8 has a razor thin depth of field wide open. I have taken many shots where there isn't enough DOF to capture the entire subject at that aperture.

    ^2 This advise has a major caveat: While the 55-200 is wider at 55, the minimum focus distance is much longer. You'll get a shorter depth of field and better bokah using the 18-55 at 1' and f5.6 than you will using the 55-200 at 3' and f4.
u/TheSummerTriangle · 2 pointsr/Nikon

In general, they're right; you should invest in lenses over cameras.

The question you need to answer, before you go on, is "Am I going to upgrade to a full-frame (FX) camera body, or stick with my current crop-sensor (DX) body?". In general, FX has some advantages; larger sensor means you can go wider-angle, and have a higher dynamic range. But it also means you're going to spend 2-5x as much for lenses -- it is much cheaper to manufacture lenses for DX bodies than FX bodies.

In general, for people in your situation, I strongly recommend staying with a DX body for the time being. You will be able to get 95% of the same effect for 30% of the cost.

Your current kit is the two kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200. If you want to upgrade, I would strongly recommend getting a few fast, high quality primes: the 35mm 1.8 DX is excellent for most "normal" uses (it has about the same angle of view as your eyes), and the 85mm 1.8 is excellent for portraits including for the yearbook you mentioned. Your 55-200, set all the way at 200mm, is also a fine portrait lens.

The other thing that you need, if you don't have one already, is a hotshoe flash like the SB500 or SB700. Better lighting will improve the quality of portraits much more than better lenses will.

You've got good taste in lusting after a fixed tele zoom, and both the FL ED and VRII are great. But for the purpose you described, either of those lenses is like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. And an expensive one, too.

u/dazmond · 2 pointsr/Nikon

I'm sure you have your reasons for not looking at a 50mm prime, but for the record I have this 50mm f/1.8 on my D600 and it's just amazing - superb sharpness and the perfect length for a full-frame camera. No VR though, so those wide apertures can be useful.

I also have the 28-300mm ED VR lens; obviously this is a slower and slightly softer lens, and you need to be prepared to Lightroom away a bit of chromatic aberration. But it's easy to get these things out of proportion; honestly, if you're shooting primarily for the web, or for prints at A3 or smaller sizes, I think you'd struggle to detect a difference between a shot taken with this and one from a prime.

u/designplantgrow · 5 pointsr/Nikon

I would highly recommend you get a copy of the book Understanding Exposure:

I have a Nikon D3400 and got a copy of this book to help push me out of auto mode. The book is very well written and explains how to capture the best images. It'd probably be better to have a foundational understanding of how a picture is taken and processed than to try making up for the lack of experience with different lenses and filters.

Is there anywhere you post your images so some of us can check them out?

Good luck and have fun!

u/Paddy32 · 4 pointsr/Nikon

If you are doing weddings, definitely go for the 24-70 2.8. It's really good lens for wedding.

I might get downvoted for saying this, but I would recommend the Tamron version. It's thrice the price, and performes just as good. Just my 2 cents. If you have lots of money though go for the new nikon 24-70 VR without any hesitation

I would also recommend as a nifty buy : if you still want a decent lens for landscape. I have it, and it does okay : it gets the job done.

u/socalchris · 6 pointsr/Nikon

> 150 shots

Don't you love digital? So much easier than learning by 36 exposures at a time.

I'd work on your composition some. I'm not a huge fan of your final composition, but it is definitely better than the original one. Maybe de-clutter it some, as someone else suggested. If you're trying to get the kid's clothes in the shot to go with the monkey, maybe remove the laundry basket, fold and stack the clothes, and put the monkey on top of that stack.

I'd also consider bumping your ISO setting down, and opening up the aperture for this shot.

If you're looking for book suggestions, try Bryan Peterson's series, particularly Understanding Exposure. It's clear, concise, has a lot of examples, and is less than $20.

Anyways, have fun. Don't take any of our criticism too seriously, it's mostly subjective. Shoot the way you want, and have fun!

u/PeperonyNChease · 2 pointsr/Nikon

This 70-300mm will give you plenty of reach. From what I understand it's a pretty good zoom lens for the price, although a bit large. It should be a step up from the cheaper version. On the other hand, the 55-200mm is a budget option and a good compliment to the kit lens, however I have to say the build quality is very cheap. I don't really like using mine because it feels so plasticy. The optical quality is solid, though.

You could also get a superzoom like the 18-140mm. That will give you a ton of range in one lens.

u/JimmySticks2001 · 1 pointr/Nikon

I also have a D3300 and I just received my 70-300mm. I decided on this after about 2 weeks of researching telephoto lenses. Since there are newer models of the lens the price of this one has dropped to a nice price range for my entry into a zoom lens. The autofocus is impressive for an older lens and the stabilization is nice, although it took some getting used to at first. It doesn't stabilize when not actively shooting. It only kicks in after autofocusing, or I guess, whenever pressing half-way down on the shutter button. It took some getting used to as my kit lens is always stabilized.

I love it so far. I have only taken it out once at dusk/sunset and the low light performance was excellent. I got a neat picture of a boat dog.

u/ParkaBoi · 6 pointsr/Nikon

In your position I'd keep the 18-55 until you get a replacement. The 35mm has the same field of view as 52.5 lens on an FF body so you won't have anything at the wide end and there is not a lot of money to be made selling kit lenses, so keep it for the moment.

I have an Amazon Basics sling backpack that I'm very happy with. It's nice and light, can easily take a body, two lenses and other bits and bobs (battery, filters, etc.) and it's really well padded. Good price too.

u/CJ_Guns · 2 pointsr/Nikon

Facts. Looking at the Nikon version, $2000 is way too much for me. I was looking more around the $1000-1250 range.

Like this would be pushing my budget. This
is more reasonable but doesn't have image stabilization, and it's lower on my budget scale. This seems like an average between the two.

Like I said, I'm not really a professional photographer. I've covered shows at regular venues and music festivals alike, but it's more of a luxury of being able to get photo passes. A lot of times it goes "I'm covering this, but I might as well cover that while I'm here", like SXSW this year. I'm mainly an entertainment journalist, hence the media press conferences (which are usually well-lit)

I'd love to get a faster tele lens, but honestly in most photo pits I'm so close that I need something lower than a cropped-to ~100mm. And while I could have a second wider lens to fill that gap, I just hate having to swap lenses on a dime. That's my worry.

What to do...

u/SentimentalSentinels · 1 pointr/Nikon

Pinterest has helpful photography cheat sheets to get you started.


When you get comfortable with the basics, I recommend investing in a good lens - I have this 35mm and it takes amazing portrait shots.

u/thatlonelyasianguy · 5 pointsr/Nikon

Before I jump in to try and provide you with an answer, I want to verify the information that you gave in your posting to make sure that we're on the same page. Some quick google-fu tells me that you have the following already, which I'm hoping you can confirm.

>DX 0.2m

I'm assuming that this is the Nikon 40mm f/2.8

>DX 1.1m

I'm also assuming that this is the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6

I'm also guessing that he has a D3300 and not a D330 (I don't think there is one, other redditors correct me if I'm wrong please) because his current kit of lenses is comprised of DX lenses. I'd like to make a couple lenses recommendations (lenses that I think are great for any kit) based on the above information.

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D (Manual focus only on the D3300 since it doesn't have an internal focus motor)

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

Both of those lenses will be alright for event and outdoor photography (although having to juggle primes all the time can be a bit of a pain and the 55-200 he already has is probably better for wildlife) but each will clock in under $200, giving you some extra cash to spare if you decide to pick up a UV filter for both of those lenses - they both use 52mm threaded filters. The only thing I can see is that both of those lenses fall somewhat within the same focal distance as the 40mm f/2.8, so the only other thing I can think of is the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G if one didn't come with the camera body when he bought it. That can be had for under $200 and would be helpful as an everyday walk-around lens instead of having to lug around different primes.

Amazon Link

Adorama Link

B&H Photo Video Link

I hope this is helpful!

*Edited for formatting.

u/RegulusWolf · 5 pointsr/Nikon

For your budget if you wanted to stick with Nikon you could pick up a used Nikon D600/D610 and probably a used 20mm f/1.8G and 50 f/1.8G, which would cover you for a lot of uses, and still be a really light kit with awesome low-light performance and much better controls. 20mm is generally wide enough for most applications, and if you need anything wider you could always stitch images in post. I think that this setup would probably even be lighter than a D7200+17-50 setup, since those f/1.8G lenses are super light. Oh, and you would also get more than a stop of extra light before even considering the extra low-light bonus of full frame, which is fantastic for doing nighttime landscapes. And they are super sharp! Probably sharper than the f/1.4G primes that I have...

Used D600:

Used 20mm f/1.8:

Used 50mm f/1.8:

And I think that the prime lenses have some weather sealing in them too, and the battery life out of the EN-EL15 batteries is awesome (from my experience with them in my 2x D7000, D600, D800, and D810.)

However, if it were me I would pick up a used Fujifilm X-T1 and a 14mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/2WR, which would be WAY lighter, but you would have to carry a few extra batteries.

u/benveniste · 1 pointr/Nikon

I owned the Nikon 70-300mm f/4~5.6 ED until I bounced it off of a sidewalk after getting brushed by an in-line skater. Eventually I replaced it with a 70-300mm VR. The newer lens is better in almost every aspect.

All xx-300mm f/5.6 lenses I've seen share the same challenge. For best results, you want to stop down to at least f/8, and when using these lenses handheld wthout VR you want to keep the shutter speed at 1/500th or faster to minimize the effects of camera shake. Depending on the light and the dSLR, that can mean cranking up the ISO to where noise begins to intrude. The result is a small "shooting envelope" where one can get the best result. For stationary subjects, VR can extend that envelope considerably, but as filyr points out, it does nothing for subject motion.

If you're still interested in a non-stabilized 70-300mm, I'd recommend this Tamron over either of the ones you list:

u/eTom22 · 1 pointr/Nikon

Thanks to both of you, I'm definitely looking at this one! Two questions:

  1. This is the lens you are talking about, right?

  2. The little "foot" on the bottom of the lens, that's something to do with the weight of it and using a tripod, is that right? Does the foot simply attach to the tripod to help balance the weight of the lens vs the body?

    Thanks again!!
u/thkie · 1 pointr/Nikon

> What's the most important things to know, the basics, what I should/shouldn't do, etc.

A lot of recommendations for blogs and videos, but I really found Understanding Exposure (amazon link) to be a great tool.

If you're reading replies here and are thinking to yourself "I don't even know what that is" this might be a good jumping off point.

u/Fudwick · 1 pointr/Nikon

To each their own. TBH I don't have any experience trying to get the kit lens to do macro with a filter or tube but have had success with a filter just fine on my 35mm (which costs ~$130 used). Linking a couple of shots below as well as the close-up filter I use below as reference.

u/Danyn · 1 pointr/Nikon

Is it really necessary or would I be fine with the Tamron 18-200? The Sigma will cost me an extra $100 after conversion and import fees. Besides the extra 50mm, why is the Sigma better than the Tamron?

EDIT: Just reassessed my situation. I don't think I need something that's 18-2xx. I have a big camera bag and besides it being convenient, I can save more money by purchasing a 70-300. That way my kit lens won't be a waste and I can still use it if necessary.

I think I'll be deciding between these two.

1 and 2

u/maina_19 · 1 pointr/Nikon

Thanks a lot. I really wish there were cheaper options, though: I just checked on Amazon and the [Tamron 90 ƒ2.8] ( is 250€ more than the [Nikon 85mm ƒ1.8] (, and since I'm only barely interested in macro photography, I don't think it would be convenient for me to drop that kind of cash to get a functionality I may not use.

Changing topic a bit and riconnecting with the focal lenght issue, I just ordered a Helios M44 with the Nikon adapter to try out the 60mm focal lenght and the weird bokeh (since I could get it for 30€), which seems like a good middle ground between the 50mm and the 85mm Nikkor lenses. In the surroundings of these focal lenghts, are there any other lenses I should check out, maybe from other manufacturers? I can't go over 400€ and I could buy used (although in Italy there isn't a huge market for used lenses). I shoot with a D3400, so older Nikkor lenses wouldn't have autofocus.

u/BillyTheRatKing · 2 pointsr/Nikon

What lenses do you already have? I see you mentioning you're indoors and light is an issue. If want a zoom lens with a low fstop you're going to be spending a fair chunk of change.

I'd determine which focal length works best for you and buy a prime lens with a low fstop for better low light performance and sharpness, plus save some cash! But of course with a prime, you'll have to zoom with your feet as you won't have any other option.

35mm f/1.8 will run you $197 new or $155 used on Amazon.

50mm f/1.8 will run you $216 new or $165 used on Amazon.

Or even longer - 85mm f/1.8 will run you $477 new or ~$390 used on Amazon

u/ja647 · 1 pointr/Nikon

If you're going to reverse it, the brand won't matter. You would need to make sure the diameter of the lens filter, 52mm for most Nikons, matched the one in the reversing ring.

That being said, the 50 1.8d would be your best value as it could be used in non-macro mode as presumably you don't want all your pictures to be macro.

Look at the Nikkor 40mm af-s. It's a lens designed to be macro. You should be able to get one for your $200 budget.

u/stizod · 1 pointr/Nikon

sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens has been great for me on my d5100. been a good all-around lens for traveling i've found and not a bad price point.


u/OsamaBeenModdin · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, fantastic lens for the money. It's relatively sharp past f/5 and offers great contrast and color. There is also a cheaper version that won't meter and uses a manual aperture ring for $50(usd) less.

Here is a shot I took with my friend's Rokinon 8mm on my D7000. As you can see from the EXIF data I used a version that doesn't meter, so it's a little tricky to get exposure correct at first.

u/Retrospektic · 7 pointsr/Nikon

Is there a limit on how wide is too wide for you? I know you prefer autofocus, but the wider you get, the less detrimental precise focus is and you can often leave it at a certain focus distance.

With that said, the [Rokinon 14mm 2.8](Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Ultra Wide Angle Fixed Lens w/ Built-in AE Chip for Nikon is a modern lens at an excellent price at $300, but is manual focus.

u/griploner · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I own a D5300 with a prime 35mm lens and can honestly say it's a great camera for the price.

A sample shot located in Wales...

u/NVIDIAMAN · 2 pointsr/Nikon

Yeah, the Polaroid-branded set you're looking at here will do just fine. I bought this set a few months ago and they've been awesome. They are functionally the same as the Polaroid set you're looking at.

Auto-focus will still work with this adapter although the range will be limited. Auto exposure and auto aperture will also work just fine.

u/OSUTechie · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I am looking for a decent lens for "sports" shots. Current body is d5300. I have the following lens.

  • AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G ED
  • AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1:35-5.6G
  • AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G

    I know the prime I have is pretty fast, but since most of the shots I am going to taking will be from a ways back, on the side of a pool deck, etc. I am thinking of a telephoto lens, just not sure if my 55-200mm can handle it. Any suggestions on some entry/amateur ones? Most of the places I'll be taking pictures of will be inside, with not the best light, and chances are not the best for flash.

    Would something like this Tamron 70-300mm be decent? (Also seems pretty cheep compare to some of the other lens I have looked at)

    Budget is less than $500 currently.

    EDIT: Going back and looking, I think the 55-200 is fast enough, just need a longer reach for some of them. At least when outside. See examples from this past summer.

  • One
  • Two
  • Three
  • Four

u/scienceblowsmymind · 5 pointsr/Nikon

Yeah, this is what I'm considering too - what's best to learn on.

How do you figure out what is newer - is this the one you mean?

u/neuromonkey · 1 pointr/Nikon

Understanding Exposure

Yes, a tripod is an extremely valuable tool. DON'T get a cheap tripod. Wait until you can afford a good one. You'll just wind up with something that causes problems and have to replace it later.

u/Allen2246 · 1 pointr/Nikon

So I think I found a current gen model thag is certified refurbished at a fantastic price:

Since it's only a $15 add on, should I get a lens hood to protect from glare off of ice?

u/PFUnRuw8Ar46 · 2 pointsr/Nikon

C'mon, don't be a pansy. Just go all the way and get a Rokinon 8mm F3.5 fisheye for $250.

More seriously, I've used the Tokina 11-16 and it was awesome. Here's my favorite shot with it

u/chulgor · 2 pointsr/Nikon

On the other hand, millions of unenhanced humans somehow managed to learn how to use film cameras with, at most, a light meter. I suspect you'll do fine. A good photography book wouldn't hurt.

u/SPOOFE · 5 pointsr/Nikon

D3200 and 35mm f/1.8 DX. The camera is lightweight and simple, with excellent technical image quality. Controls and build quality aren't as robust as pricier cameras, and the step-up model, the D5200, has a flip-out screen. The lens performs very well for the money, and other options start getting pricy really fast in some cases.

u/AccursedTheory · 1 pointr/Nikon

The Nikon macros I see suggested the most for wandering about are the Nikon 85mm Micro, and the two Laowa lenses, the 60mm and the 100mm. I don't have personal experience with them, I'm afraid, and they're all above 400 bucks (But that's what the used market is for).

There's a Nikon 40mm, but the working distance to get full 1.0x magnification is pretty short. On the plus side, it can focus to infinity, so it may actually be a good "walking around" lens - You may never get a true macro photo, but you'll be able to shoot from infinity to a few inches away without swapping lenses. Hopefully someone here has some experience with that.

Related: Something to keep in mind is that, generally speaking, the more mms a macro lens has, the further away it can take photos that are actually macro (1:1, or 1.0x). This helps, because if your camera is 1 inch away from your subject, it may be blocking all the light sources, making an image impossible.

u/joesacher · 1 pointr/Nikon

Extension tubes. These move the lens further away from the sensor and move your range of focus.

Something like this:

It is a very cheap way to see if you want to spend the money on a dedicated macro lens.

u/bobbfwed · 2 pointsr/Nikon

This maybe?

These AmazonBasics bags are amazing. I've had one for a couple years now, traveled all around the world, not a single complaint.

u/turboRock · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I've got the Sigma on my d7100. I think it's great. I've not compared it to the Nikon one. The one I have is -

u/lungbong · 1 pointr/Nikon

I have the same camera and had the same questions and settled for one of these:

Really happy with it.

u/grizzlyblake91 · 1 pointr/Nikon

Thank you! So this lens would work well? If so I'll start saving up for it

u/d4vezac · 2 pointsr/Nikon

Third party flashes (Godox, Flashpoint, Yongnuo, Neewer) are quite good, and so are their radio triggers.

For cards, your D7200 has two slots. This can be important for redundancy if you shoot paid gigs, since a corrupted/lost card would be a bad thing.
Cards do come in different speeds, which will affect how quickly your buffer clears (important for sports where you may take a burst to catch the action). I’d use a pair of fast cards at smaller capacities (32 or 64 GB). Two 32s shooting raw gets me ~1300 shots, which has been enough for all but one or two events I’ve shot. I keep spares in my bag to swap during a performance’s intermission.

I use the cheaper Amazon Basics Sling and it holds my D7200 with 18-35 attached, 50-100, and 8 extra double As in the main pocket, with a flash, 50mm lens, wireless trigger, and a few cleaning supplies plus earplugs in the top. Barely. You can strap an additional flash to the outside if need be.

u/jtrespeces · 1 pointr/Nikon

Currently in the middle of a vacation, and the Nikkor 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 G VR is a fairly good lens, currently $102 on amazon. I wouldn't bother with any zoom lenses (55-200mm) unless you plan on taking pictures of object that are far away

u/Hades2k · 6 pointsr/Nikon

The original, full title is "LC-52 Snap-on Front Lens Cap 52mm" - you should be able to find one in almost every camera store or you could order it from Amazon - maybe it'll make it in time:

u/britchesss · 1 pointr/Nikon

Would this be a good choice?

u/dancedar · 1 pointr/Nikon

If you're looking for portraits you need a longer focal length, so the 50 over 35 would be better. You don't need the fx version as you have a dx body, so the 50 1.8D would be fine, except that your body doesn't have a built-in motor for this older D version, so you'd need the 50 1.8G aka

Depending where you are these can be had relatively cheaply second hand, too.

u/rogue · 1 pointr/Nikon

The Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro looks nice. For a few euros more you could also purchase a new Nikon 40mm f/2.8G Micro lens. Note that the Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Micro is an old school manual focus lens.

u/youngxpilgrim · 3 pointsr/Nikon

I shoot on the same camera and am flirting with experimenting with this:

Seems there might be some quality control issues, but big value.

u/Bonezey · 2 pointsr/Nikon

The Sigma is definitely within his budget if you consider Amazon Germany

u/bradtrux412 · 1 pointr/Nikon

No problem! I think the one you linked is the old version. The new version is this one. It's a bit cheaper but doesn't have as much focal range. I'm honestly not sure what the newer version has that the one you linked didn't. Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him) has some comprehensive reviews on the different wide angles lenses that might be useful.

u/FemGswampyankee · 2 pointsr/Nikon

I have a D5100 and I was on the same boat as you. I wanted to be able to do macro shots, yet found that a whole macro lens is terribly expensive. As an alternative, I got macro filters from Amazon which have worked very well for me. If you're adamant about getting a full lens, I don't have any suggestions for you, but...

Here is a picture I took of a doorknob center with maximum magnification when I was using the filters Note: the image was cropped to be narrow

This is what it looks like using the normal macro settings on my camera without any filters

Lastly, here is a +18 magnification of the keyhole in its full image size

Comment edits for formatting

u/Buffalogriller · 2 pointsr/Nikon

The Nikon AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G is the best option for your camera, and perfectly within your budget.

Cheaper third party lenses have poor optical performance, and more expensive options are for Full Frame cameras, which makes the material and price go up, but has no advantage when used on your camera.

u/ForeverFun · 2 pointsr/Nikon

What kind of macro photography do you want to do? Generally, the smaller your subject, the longer the macro lens you want to use.

u/thisguy9 · 2 pointsr/Nikon

That's a good looking lens but for $700 I would be hard pressed to buy that over the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for $430 unless the 8mm focal length was absolutely needed.

OP, since your camera will not focus with the new Nikon 10-20mm I would suggest the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. It's $430 new but you can find deals down to $350 used if you keep an eye out.

u/bolanrox · 7 pointsr/Nikon

you dont want super zooms theres a huge trade off with sharpness vs range.

You have to look for AF-s or AF-p on the lens to see if it has the motor built in to AF. Nikon lenses will also note DX for crop sensors, not to mention the huge price diffrence for FF glass.

  • This one does

    and this one doesn't

    Also if you want a complete replacement for the kit lens the Nikkor 18-140 f/3.5 is fantastic. Its our go to walking lens. Will give you more than enough reach IMO for anything short of wildlife shots in normal use. That's what we used for the egg hunts yesterday. I have seen it go for $300 recently but it is usually $500 or so. I can honestly leave it on our body 99% of the time.

    The bulk of my IG page is that lens unless noted if you want some real world examples
u/jrshaul · 2 pointsr/Nikon

Comparable to Nikon, about $100 cheaper after rebate. I might take a grey market Nikon 70-300VR if it were $300, though.

u/bobbybottombracket · 3 pointsr/Nikon

Ask him for the serial number..

Bro, the lens is $200 bucks, get a new one. Don't pay $175 for this...

u/pranav_koundinya · 1 pointr/Nikon

It’s this one : Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

I haven’t tried the AF-P lens but this lens is soft beyond 200mm. I’m considering upgrading to the 70-200 f/2.8 though.

u/Aytitude · 1 pointr/Nikon

Are you talking about the tamron with or without the stabilization ?

u/microkool · 1 pointr/Nikon

This one, it's definitely worth at least twice its cost.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

u/totallyshould · 2 pointsr/Nikon

Ok, so it looks like you really like the wide angle of that 11-16, but it doesn't look like you have a fast lens at all.

The big obvious one is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 G for well under $200. It will be a short telephoto on the DX, and a normal lens on a full frame body. It's small, light, fast, focuses well, it's sharp. Good lens. It is good for head-and-shoulders sitting across the table from somebody on DX, and on FX you'd get that shot but down to where their hand are resting on the table.

The 85mm 1.8g feels like an awkward and stupid focal length on DX. It's too long for a lot of comfortable people shots, and not really a long telephoto for stuff that's far away. Having said that, it's so sharp it will cut you, and on FX it's a very handy length similar to what the 50 is on DX. That's my two cents.

If you can stretch your budget a bit, the Sigma Art lenses are excellent for the money, and the Nikon 1.8 G primes (not just the 50) are quite good.

u/Shaka1277 · 8 pointsr/Nikon

The focal range of the 24-70 is designed for FX cameras with a larger sensor. This lens on your camera would have a FoV equivalent to a 36-105 mm lens, which I consider too narrow at the wide end for "general use"/"walkabout"

On the flipside, the 17-55 mm lens would have a FoV equivalent to about 25-72 mm, which you can see is very similar to the 24-70, showing that they're lenses intended to provide a similar FoV albeit on different sensor formats.

The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is crazy expensive, however. I've never used one, but the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 can be bad for $300 USD at a mere fraction of the cost. It's very highly regarded, so definitely check it out.

u/peachyiphoneuser · 1 pointr/Nikon

Ok thanks for the response.

Well it all comes together at $650 for everything. I think my add is misleading. That what I just paid for it awhile back is what I was getting at. I just removed the prices because that was dumb.

The 35 isn't a wide angle. It's a prime. This one here
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

This is the other lens. A bit older
Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens (Discontinued by Manufacturer)