Lens Recommendation - Beginner with a D5200

trs518

Mouseketeer
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Earlier this year I purchased my first DSLR, a Nikon D5200. So far the only lenses that I have are the two kits lenses. I'm at the point where I've started to our grow those and I'm looking for new lens. I'm trying to decide between the Nikon AF-S 35mm 1.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 Aspherical DI II SP IF LD XR, due to having a limited budget.

Currently I'm leaning towards the 35mm, as it's a common focal length in my work, is faster, and cheaper. However, I'm wondering if I'll miss out on the zoom and the potential lower focal lengths.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is there another lens that I should consider?
 
Some considerations:
First off, it would be very worthwhile for you to look at the used market. Lenses are made to last a really long time. If you find a reputable seller, you'll save quite a bit, and may even be able to get both lenses. (I'm actually in the process of selling off my Nikon gear but don't think you're looking for my stuff).

Second-- Primes are all about the image quality, lower light capability, and ability to take great control over blurring the background. Zooms are compromises towards convenience -- and that convenience can be very important. Otherwise, you would eventually need a big bag full of primes.

Third -- Don't forget stabilization. Make sure you realistically consider whether you need your lenses to be stabilized. Most primes are not stabilized -- the 35mm DX lens is not stabilized.
The Tamron has 2 options --- A VC version and a non-VC version. According to some reports, the non-VC version is sharper.... so then you also need to consider whether you want maximum potential sharpness, or vibration compensation so you can get sharp shots at slower shutter speeds. (In other words, the Non-VC will be sharper than the VC if you're on a tripod with both, or if you are shooting both at 1/1000... on the other hand, the VC will be sharper at 1/25 than the non-VC, due to the VC). (As I said... very few primes are stabilized. Tamron has stabilized primes, I'll be selling my stabilized 45mm/1.8 eventually).

Fourth -- Consider how the lens will COMPLIMENT your current lenses. If you are planning on replacing, then sell the lens you are replacing and use those funds towards the upgrade. If you have Nikon's fairly new 18-55.. it's a decent lens. The Tamron 17-55 would be an upgrade.... over the entire focal length range, but only a moderate update. The 35mm/1.8 would be a HUGE upgrade over your 18-55.. but only at 35mm. (obviously)

If I were in your shoes... I'd go with the 35mm DX, but keep my 18-55 as well.
 
Thanks for the response, it was very helpful.

I have been looking at the used market. Currently with the Nikon rebates, a new 35mm is around $165, which is the price of a used one. The Tamron is $225 used, in excellent condition.
 
Earlier this year I purchased my first DSLR, a Nikon D5200. So far the only lenses that I have are the two kits lenses. I'm at the point where I've started to our grow those and I'm looking for new lens. I'm trying to decide between the Nikon AF-S 35mm 1.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 Aspherical DI II SP IF LD XR, due to having a limited budget.

Currently I'm leaning towards the 35mm, as it's a common focal length in my work, is faster, and cheaper. However, I'm wondering if I'll miss out on the zoom and the potential lower focal lengths.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is there another lens that I should consider?

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 DI II SP non-vc (Canon) is good but I hardly use anymore it since I went mirrorless (super cheap 22/2 pancake prime is sharper and much smaller)

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Last edited:


What are your plans for the lens? What types of scenes do you plan on? The 35 is basically the same as a 55 on a film camera. IOW, a standard lens. That's not a bad thing, just a consideration. Not wide enough for some things and no reach for others. But if that's where you find yourself shooting a lot with the typical short zoom kit lens, definitely go with the 35. But remember, while the f1.8 is nice, the lens will be sharpest at f5.6 or f8. You may sometimes need to make a conscious effort to use the larger aperture.

I'd recommend against the Tamron if you have that range covered. At least for now, the extra stop or two won't make that much diff in the long run (relative to the 35/1.8 impact).

I WOULD suggest a Nikkor 10-20/3.5-5.6. Especially if (since you posted here) you are shooting in the parks. Going wide, even on a crop body, can open up a whole new set of possibilities for you. Technique isn't as demanding as long glass. Just a thought.
 
What are your plans for the lens? What types of scenes do you plan on? The 35 is basically the same as a 55 on a film camera. IOW, a standard lens. That's not a bad thing, just a consideration. Not wide enough for some things and no reach for others. But if that's where you find yourself shooting a lot with the typical short zoom kit lens, definitely go with the 35. But remember, while the f1.8 is nice, the lens will be sharpest at f5.6 or f8. You may sometimes need to make a conscious effort to use the larger aperture.

I'd recommend against the Tamron if you have that range covered. At least for now, the extra stop or two won't make that much diff in the long run (relative to the 35/1.8 impact).

I WOULD suggest a Nikkor 10-20/3.5-5.6. Especially if (since you posted here) you are shooting in the parks. Going wide, even on a crop body, can open up a whole new set of possibilities for you. Technique isn't as demanding as long glass. Just a thought.
While I might choose the 35mm, I wouldn't discount the Tamron just based on stops of light. It's also about IQ and sharpness.

And I'm not sure the OP is going to find that Nikkor in even the same price ballpark of what they are considering.

That said, there is much to be said for going wide, especially at Disney. Perhaps a used copy of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8?
 
I use my 35 on a D5200 in the parks a lot as my people/meet and greet lens.
It's an adjustment going from zoom to prime, but the quality/ability to shoot in less than ideal lighting is absolutely worth it, especially if you will be somewhere that you can move around to adjust the framing.
 


D'oh! I withdraw my Nikkor recommendation. Just checked compat charts and the AF-P won't really work with the 5200. Any one of the wide Tokinas, as mentioned above, would be a good substitute.
 
Thank you everyone for your advice. It's greatly appreciated. As of right now, I think I'll go with Nikon 35mm as my third lens purchase. When it comes time for a fourth lens, I will definitly look at the Tokinas. As of right now, I don't shoot wide enough to really justify it.
 
I went with a 18-300 lens for walking around the parks on my D5300. I find most of my shots in the MK, Studio and parts of AK are in the 18-70 range. Epcot with its longer sight lines and other parts of AK (like the Safari) benefit from a longer lens.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top