#5 in Digital camera lenses
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens

Sentiment score: 36
Reddit mentions: 69

We found 69 Reddit mentions of Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens. Here are the top ones.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
Fast, upgraded f/1.8, compact FX format prime lens. The picture angle with 35 millimeter (135) format is 47 degree and the maximum reproduction ratio is 0.15XFocal length 50 millimeter, minimum focus distance 1.48 feet (0.45 meter)Newly developed optical system with aspherical lens element, exclusive Nikon silent wave motor (SWM)M/a focus mode switch, filter thread 58 millimeter, autofocus: Yes. Dimensions (approx.) (from the camera lens mounting flange): Approximately 2.83 inches diameter x 2.01 inchesOptimized for edge to edge sharpness on both fx and dx format d SLRSLens not zoomable
Height2.83464 Inches
Length2.08661 Inches
Number of items1
Release dateJanuary 2019
Size50MM F1.8G
Weight0.4078551847 Pounds
Width2.83464 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 69 comments on Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens:

u/cubiccle · 11 pointsr/photography

That's a no-brainer. Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G. Boom.

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/odd_affilliate_link · 7 pointsr/photography

Ask her if she needs a 50mm equivalent or an actual 50mm lens. Because she is shooting with a crop-sensor camera, the 35mm is close to what a 50mm would be on a full-frame camera.

If she says 50mm equivalent, get this: 35mm f1.8

If she says actual 50mm lens, get this: 50mm f1.8
If she says actual 50mm and you have a bigger budget, get this: 50mm f1.4

All three lenses are fantastic.

Edit: If you don't want to ask (and blow the surprise) just get the 50 1.8 - safe bet. Then get her the 35 1.8 for her birthday!

u/Fracturedlens · 6 pointsr/photography

I have been shooting on Nikon for a while now. The D7000 is a solid camera. Going from my old D80 to the D7000 it was like stepping into the future. The full RGB meter and the 6400 ISO range make for some amazing shots.

Now as for lens that largely depends on your budget.

  • The standard starter 50mm f/1.8 $219.00

    The 50mm will give you razor sharp images work in low light and is a great lens to learn on. If you ever move to a FX (full frame) camera is will work on there as well. On your crop camera it will be 50mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 75mm lens. This is a little long for some folks which leads to our next lens.

  • Great starter just for DX Cameras 35mm f/1.8 $196.95

    The 35 is a DX lens (build just for your crop camera so it won't work well on a FX camera) but its a great place to start. This lens is a "normal" lens. Meaning it is close to what your eye sees. Its cheap and has many of the qualities of the 50mm.

  • If you have some money to burn the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 $594.00

    I just picked up this Sigma a few days ago from Amazon and I can confirm its sharp as a tack. I honestly like this lens better than the 17-55 Nikon which is 1500 ish dollars. It has optical stabilization and is lighter than the hulking Nikon lens.

    I have stayed away from lenses with, in my opinion, crappy f-stops. You can find cheaper lens out there but you will suffer from high f stops like 5.6 which will kill your ability to shoot in low light, and to isolate your subject and have real control over your depth of field. These lenses are great place to start and they will stay in your camera bag for years to come. There are more lenses out there from zooms to telephoto to macro if you give us some idea of what you want to shoot then we can help recommend a more specialized lens. Happy shooting.
u/johnny5ive · 6 pointsr/photography

Yes!!! I'm in this thread early so i'm just gonna dump my questions. For reference I'm shooting with a D7100 (I blame DatAperture for owning that instead of a D7000)

  1. Do you all know exactly what combo of shutter speed / aperture / ISO you need to get a picture exposed correctly or are you just doing guess-and-check? I know the general relation between all 3 and how it determines exposure but I rarely get it right on the first or second try. Do you all have warm up shots or do you just nail exposure the first time?

  2. Debating a yongnuo flash for my indoor events. How important is TTL?

  3. Shooting a friends rehearsal dinner (she doesn't want anything crazy she just wants pictures to remember the night by). I'm not too nervous because I've had tons of practice and can turn out pretty good photos (thank you lightroom!) but i'm wondergin if a Sigma 18-35/1.8 will be all I need for the night. Should i get a nifty fifty to go with? Should I look into renting a 24-70 for the night or will I be ok just having the other two?

  4. I have a D7100, Can I save $100 and get the 50mm 1.8D or is the 50mm 1.8G that much better? Would I be missing out on that much?

  5. As a hobbyist would I be missing out if i bought a zoom a f2.8 or is f/4 enough? Is that extra stop really worth it if i'm mostly using it for friends/family/vacation? I know it really depends on the lighting and how many shots i'm ok with missing but i'd like to hear if there's anyone that regrets getting a lens at f/4 instead of f/2.8

    Thank you for your help. Here's a picture I took of my dog as thanks for your comments. Taken at 1/25, f/2.5, ISO 3200.
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/Streetiebird · 5 pointsr/Beginning_Photography

I am a Nikon shooter, so I will give my opinion from that point of view.

If you're serious about getting back into photography, I would skip the entry-level bodies like the D3400, and D5500 and go up to the D7200 (~$1300 with 18-150mm lens). It's not full-frame, and has a crop-sensor so focal lengths are different from film cameras (1.5x crop factor so 35mm lenses look like they're 50mm), and the pixels on the sensor are less big physically, but unless you're trying to go pro the difference does not matter much. Also you won't break the bank, and it has amazing capabilities like auto-bracketing and very high ISO which you can use for landscapes/sunsets/night sky photography and also has a built-in flash (unlike the pro bodies) which can control the Nikon creative lighting system if you get more into portraits and want to achieve some simple off-camera lighting.

As an additional lens you could consider the nikkor 50mm f1.8 ($217), since it would be much better for portraits than the 18-150.

That leaves quite a bit for a computer. If you're not hooked on Apple products, I would suggest a refurbished Dell through their factory outlet and look around at either the XPS desktops or XPS laptops. Get at least 16GB RAM and a 6th gen Core i7 processor. You're probably looking at around $1000 for a decent rig.

You MUST get Adobe Lightroom. This should be mandatory. You can get the bundle with Photoshop if you pay by the month, or you can buy a standalone copy of Lightroom on Amazon.

Good luck!!!

u/[deleted] · 4 pointsr/rva

Yes, it would be perfect for it - it's a DX lens and your camera is a DX camera.

All Nikon lenses fit all Nikon DSLRs. The only thing you have to worry about is if your camera is a crop sensor (yours and mine are both crop sensors) or a full format. Crop sensors on Nikons are called DX, and shoot a narrower angle than a full format. So, the (less expensive) lenses built for DX cameras have "vignetting" on full format cameras. And full format lenses, which Nikon calls FX, have extra light hitting outside the sensor if you're using them on a DX camera. Basically, both FX and DX lenses work on DX cameras but if you pay for a FX you're paying for more lens than you need using a DX camera.

Having said all that, my favorite lens ever is an FX and I use it all the time on my DX.

u/TonyDarko · 4 pointsr/photography

That was an excellent and thoughtful gift, kudos to you. Aside from the lenses, there are a few other things that help a lot when starting out in photography (I'm just figuring this out as I'm pretty new):

  • A tripod can help if he wants to take low-light pictures and set up really long shutter times (it basically makes it so that no shaking messes up his pictures) and it can help to take pictures of you guys. I'm planning on bringing one for a trip with my girlfriend and I so we can take cool pictures where there may not be other people to help out.

  • A good bag or backpack would be great, increasingly so as the amount of gear that he has goes up. It's tough to carry around all that crap, and these bags make it pretty easy to fit.

  • a strap, pretty self explanatory. carrying around a DSLR in one hand sucks.

  • Extra memory cards and possibly an external hard drive are nice because RAW camera files take up a toooon of storage and having backups is always nice in the case that a really important picture gets corrupted.

    As for lenses:

    Nikon 35mm prime (basically allows him to take pretty nice, wide open landscape pictures at great quality)

    50mm prime widely regarded as the best starting lens (another no zoom lens that is an all-around all-star that is pretty versatile. good for portraits, landscapes, etc)
u/finaleclipse · 3 pointsr/photography

Your Imgur link is dead.

Also for portraits, a great starting lens is generally a 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8G depending on type of portrait. For her camera, you'll want to be looking at the 50mm f1.8G for more headshot-style portraits or 35mm f1.8G for more full body or environmental portraits.

If you're looking to spend less, consider buying used from a reputable seller like KEH:

u/alisonfd · 3 pointsr/photography

They do.

However if you have a entry level camera without a autofocus motor in the body, then an AF lens will not focus on that camera and you will need to pay for an AF-S one for autofocus.

So this one is AF, so it will not focus on the D40-90, D3000 series, D5000 Series. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4

Whereas this one being AF-S will focus on those bodies as it has a motor in the lens

u/arachnophilia · 3 pointsr/photography

the modern nikon 50mm f/1.8g and 35mm f/1.8g DX are about the same price.

the addition of the focus motor seems to have doubled the price.

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. http://imgur.com/a/kZxC2. http://imgur.com/a/1eOv5#9.
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 http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05
or used < $400. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/284402?gclid=CjwKEAiAtNujBRDMmoCN46aB8noSJAC7SYv7mf2IsbdzMWfDQ6PQ7TP8v3RtWwojn7S83gSJnLjSkhoCGhfw_wcB

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. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417144124&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+50+mm. 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. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d7000-dslr-camera-with-18-140mm-vr-lens-black/2071002.p?id=1219068635598&skuId=2071002.

Edit 3: Scratch that. You may want to take a look at this... http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00POQ8B74/ref=twister_B005MX9OSE?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

u/cmtrinks · 3 pointsr/photography

After wanting a DSLR for several years, I recently decided to bite the bullet and finally buy one. I picked up the D7000, and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. While this lens is perfect for me so far and does everything that I want while I continue to learn, eventually I'll be looking to acquire more lenses. Heres where I'm confused on what would actually be the best lenses to purchase down the road. I'm not constantly shooting portraits, or fast paced sports games; I usually just shoot whatever I want, whenever.

I'm looking to grab either a 35mm, 50mm, or a wide angle. These are what I've found so far that have my interest: 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G. I'm not exactly sure which would be better since I have a 28-75. I've read a ton of articles of 35mm vs 50mm, and even wide angle but I'm still confused on which to buy. I would like to take city landscape, food, and possibly portraits with whatever lens I get. Any wide angle recommendations would be appreciated.

Secondly, I want to purchase a telephoto but I'm not sure which one would suit my lifestyle more. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $5-700 for this. I was looking at this model: 70-200mm f/2.8 I would eventually upgrade to a better telephoto, but for the time being I don't necessarily want to spend $1,000+. Any suggestions on what would be a better lens to buy instead of the one I linked, and what would be a good lens to upgrade to in a few years?

I've taken a few longer exposure night time shots that have turned out very nice, but I wasn't sure about how to do daytime bright light exposures until recently learning about neutral density filters. I've heard multiple pros and cons about adjustable ND filters, so I'm unsure if I should be buying an adjustable or regular filters.

u/inverse_squared · 3 pointsr/AskPhotography

Phones are still a good starting place unless you need the advantages of a stand-alone camera. Do you need anything that your phone photos are currently lacking?

What's your budget?

I would look into something like the Nikon D3400 with the kit zoom lens and maybe an optional 50mm f/1.8 lens for product shots.

u/adamp319 · 3 pointsr/photography

Hey /r/photography,

I'd like to buy an entry level camera, and I think I've settled on just buying a like new / refurb'd D3300 and then getting a NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G ... Is there any reason I shouldn't do this?

u/COFFEE_IS_4_CLOSERS · 3 pointsr/photography

There is a way to to do center focusing, though I don't have the exact steps to do so off the top of my head. I did it for my 3a when I got it and haven't returned to that part of the camera's menu. Just letting you know that there is a way though.

To add to Fafoah's comment, looking for lenses with aperture rings is something you definitely have to keep in mind with Nikon lenses; older lenses will have them while newer ones got rid of the ring completely. Something to look out for (again, with Nikon lenses), is that anything G will NOT have the aperture ring. On the other hand, lenses denoted as D will have rings.

For example, here's the Nikon 50mm f1.8G versus the Nikon 50mm f1.8D

The obvious advantage to this is cost; D's tend to be the older models and cheaper (though there are definitely a few exceptions). Disadvantage is image quality or lens durability. Personally, I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8D, and I really like it especially because it didn't cost me an arm+leg.

Either way though, using any non-e-mount Sony lenses on the NEX will force you to manually focus which is fun especially with the NEX's peaking mode (when manually focusing, it highlights the in-focus bits) but 1) will take a while to be quick about it and 2) VERY difficult to do in the dark, especially when you become dependent on the peaking mode.

I should also add that because you can't auto-focus with other-brand lenses, this actually opens you up to much older lenses which also tend to be cheaper because they lack things like auto-focus or image stability. Because of this, I was able to pick up an old Nikon 105mm f2.5 AI-s lens for cheap. All said and done, I have 3 lenses and did not spend more than the cost of the camera.

u/Mostly42Harmless · 3 pointsr/photography

I have a D3000 and recently found that only one 50mm f/1.8 lens worked with the camera link. By this I mean other lenses had to be manually focussed rather than focussed by the camera automatically. Just something to consider.
Edit: wait there the link is wrong; trying to find the correct one.
Edit 2: OK that's the one. Not sure if there is a 35mm suitable one though. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than me will tell you.

u/caesareansalad · 3 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

Dream big? Well then.... a 50mm lens for portrait photography. I love photography and want to start a "real" business at some point, rather than just do a few photoshoots a year like I am now.

And also, a battery charger because I go through batteries like crazy. C'mon...gimme. :P

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/elevene · 2 pointsr/photography

Photography newbie here, can someone tell me the difference between:

u/av4rice · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

That price seems a little steep. You could get that body and lenses brand new for only $138 more:



Or you could get a used D5000 with 18-55mm lens kit in like-new condition for as little as $349:


Even if you get the most expensive kit on that page ($465) and add a brand new 50/1.8G, that's still cheaper than what she's asking for.

50mm on a crop sensor like the D5000's is good for portraits, still life, products, and food photography. It's a little tight for general use and things like indoor group shots.

55-250 is longer for more distant objects. You could use it for sports and wildlife, but mostly only in daylight because it's somewhat slow.

u/dietryiing · 2 pointsr/photography

I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8 which is a great lens, especially for the price.

u/mcouldsee · 2 pointsr/cats

It's not a stupid question! Some lenses are incompatible with certain bodies. When it comes to auto-focus capabilities, some lenses contain the focus motor within the lens and others rely on the focus motor within the camera itself (which certain models do and don't have). The D3300 does not have a built-in auto-focus motor so you will have to purchase lenses that do. This would be the lens you need if you want auto-focus. It's a bit pricer, unfortunately:


I've been buying my lenses used off of ebay these days and you can save a lot of money this way. Check Craigslist too, since a lot of people sell camera stuff cheap. Don't be afraid to buy used since lenses are built to last forever. As far as the auto-focus feature goes, I personally prefer getting manual-focus lenses, but there is lots of appeal for auto-focusing your shots, especially if you want to catch images such as running kids or pets.

u/TThor · 2 pointsr/photography

Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.

-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-

After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).

-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-

So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.

u/Christmasham2 · 2 pointsr/photography

Some people are going way over the top with their responses, probably just because they enjoy boasting about dream gear that costs thousands and is completely irrelevant to you.

Look at either the 35mm or the 50mm, they are both obvious choices for new photographers because they're so cheap, yet pack a huge punch in image quality.

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

Both are priced very similarly, neither is particularly better than the other, I would personally recommend the 35mm as it's slightly more versatile.

yes there are a lot of other lenses out there, but you really don't need to think about them right now, as they'll either be far out of your budget, or designed for specialty uses, just get one of these, they'll do you well, trust me.

u/parzivalsanorak · 2 pointsr/AskPhotography

I mean, you're using the kit lens and the absolute cheapest 50mm prime there is for that body. Yongnuo isn't quite known as a premium brand. And while later models of the D3300 have an amazing kit lens (the AF-P one), it's still a kit lens.

You might want to get the Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G as a first step. Should be about $200 new, the autofocus works on the body you already have and IIRC, it's one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. If sharpness is that important, you'll surely see a difference between those lenses.

As for this:

> And one of the reason I'm thinking we should get a new camera is because my boss would be more open to spending money on a new lens for a new body as oppose to a new lens for an old entry level body...

The lens I suggested is an FX lens, so it will work on full-frame cameras as well, should you decide to get one. Do mind crop factors, though. The question is, do you have to? The D3300 is still one of the best DSLR bodies out there in that price range, four years after it came out. Image quality is one of its strong suits. It lacks somewhat in low light performance and it's not as comfortable to use as other models, but those don't sound like they are defining factors in your case.

u/jimrie · 2 pointsr/photography

well you could get close to the subject with the 35mm 1.8 if you want a tiny bit more space from your subject and less of a wide angle 50 mm1.8, but I think the best for you would be this 55-200. You could definitely use it for portraits and some amatuer action/sports/nature photgraphy, i use it all the time. if you've got the money then go for the 55-300 it might be a little softer and less crisp around the 250 mm+ range but I dont really have any personal use with it so i wouldn't know.

u/pestilence4hr · 2 pointsr/photography

I also just noticed that they released a 50mm f/1.8g AF-S lens this spring. I may just have to get that one and sell the f/1.8d AF. Seems to get decent reviews. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-1-8G-AF-S-NIKKOR/dp/B004Y1AYAC

u/rogue · 2 pointsr/photography

The Nikon D5000 doesn't have a built in autofocus drive so you'll want to shop for a lens that has AF-S. The 85mm f/1.8G comes to mind as a good portrait lens, due to its focal length. There's also the 50mm f/1.8G and 50mm f/1.4G which is within the focal length she's familiar with when using the kit lens.

u/OmniaMors · 2 pointsr/photography

Both are super cheap new or used

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001S2PPT0

Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004Y1AYAC

u/ypod · 2 pointsr/photography

Nikon makes a couple affordable 50mm 1.8 lenses - they're a great deal for the image quality you get out of them. The focal length is perfect for portraits on DX format cameras, and the wide aperture makes it usable in lower light conditions. eg

u/cougar572 · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know where you get your prices from but the 50mm 1.8g is $216 and the 1.4g is $424 on US amazon so about a $200 difference. I think you are talking about the 85mm in which case you are correct.



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/Far-Aim · 1 pointr/photography

I'm not sure about the price at Best Buy, I got it off amazon here http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000O161X0/ref=mp_s_a_2?pi=SL75&qid=1347483141&sr=8-2.

I notice someone else mentioned another 50mm without an AF feature. I would say not to get that one if you can afford to. You'll want the one with AF support for any fast moving subjects outside of what you normally shoot. Plus it's just simpler most days. Of course if you don't have the money for it, that's fine. The one with AF is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004Y1AYAC/ref=mp_s_a_1?pi=SL75&qid=1347483321&sr=8-1

u/cheech_sp · 1 pointr/photography

New lens, or new camera?

I have a Nikon D40 (with 18-55 kit lens) and like its quick shutter lag, but need a bigger aperture to get a shallow DOF for portraits. Should I spend $200 on a F/1.8 AF-S lens (35mm or 50mm), or spend $300 and get a newer Olympus XZ-1 (with f1.8-2.5 lens).

Having a smaller camera would be handy, but I don't want to sacrifice fast shutter lag. But maybe the Olympus will be fast enough?

u/agentrai · 1 pointr/photography

So I'm thinking of getting a 8mm Oshiro, a 70-300mm Tamron macro, and a 50mm prime, are these a good variety of lenses?

u/frostickle · 1 pointr/photography

Are you sure it's the lens and not the camera? This sort of thing should be handled by Nikon. Check google to see if there is a Nikon repair center in your city.

It is quite difficult for us to tell you how fixable the camera is just based on written descriptions over the internet.
As for cost-effective lenses, for simple photos and portraits, the 50mm f1.8 is what you want. Look for a used one if you want to save money, it can go as low as $100, but $120 is an ok price for it. And it is definitely worth the money.

u/skibybadoowap · 1 pointr/photography

Is this the lens you would recommend?

u/ANiceSunset · 1 pointr/photography

Thank you for the response. Follow up question on the lens. I think i'm leaning towards a 50mm AF-S G lens

Is there a big difference between lenses that have the G and the D after the name? From what I read and what the Best Buy folks told me, is that the G is the later model, and better motor. Essentially it'll autofocus because it's an AF-S type.

Also, is there anything that I should read more into about the AF vs AF-S types? This forum mentioned about how AF-S body won't have autofocus with a AF lens and other way around.

u/balcony-gardener · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Oh wow, the detail on that is great!! It would for sure show all of the delicate details of a wildflower and do everything else I'd want it to do. I'm almost positive I'm going to get the lens on amazon and just get the body used. You seriously saved me from wasting $90 on less than great lens.

This is the one I think I'll get along with the used D7000

u/bsukenyan · 1 pointr/photography

Hopefully this gets seen, since I couldn't find a thread like this that was current.

What is the difference between the letters that come after the f-stop numbers when looking at lenses? For instance 50 mm f/1.8G AF-S compared to 50 mm f/1.8D AF. For my nikon d5100, and as I understand it I can use a dx or fx (at a higher price) lenses, but I don't really know what the 'G' and 'D' stand for. I'm trying to find some new lenses, but don't really have the money to just spend $400-$600 to get one or two lenses that I would like to have (a 50mm prime and a good telephoto), so I'd like to know what I should look for in trying to find used lenses somewhere.

u/6g72black · 1 pointr/photography

That is an excellent lens.

Nikon 50mm 1.8G is also extremely popular.

Both of these lenses are fast, and reasonably affordable. Additionally, shooting with prime lenses helps you grow as a photographer; it forces you to think more about every shot.

However, it sounds like you shoot sky and landscapes, so you might want to look for a slightly wider lens. The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is quite popular, and you can often find pancake lenses well price on /r/photomarket

The wiki in the sidebar is also an excellent resource!

u/ChokingVictim · 1 pointr/photography

Yes, but only if you get the G/AF-S version.

Here is a direct link to the 35mm: https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

Here is a direct link to the 50mm: https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-1-8G-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/

You're looking specifically for "Nikon AF-S [...] G."

u/running-with-pugs · 1 pointr/photography

I have the Nikon D3300 with its basic lens that goes from 18mm wide to 55mm zoom - that's like rather wide so you can almost fit a whole room into the shot - to about 4-5x zoom on point and shoot cameras.

On top of that I got a used lens that goes from 55mm to 300mm ant this thing is good for hunting ducks and other animals from distance (dunno, additional 15x zoom? hard to say because these are different class cameras). Great fun lens for day use, I like it a lot for the 170€ that cost me used. It's this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449671477&sr=8-1&keywords=nikkor+55-300

For night time I got a fixed 35mm lens - no zoom, just very sensitive to light: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-1-8G/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449671571&sr=8-1&keywords=nikkor+35mm+dx Used a lot for concerts, video and general daily use.

After that is my "candy", stuff I don't reaaaallly need but wanted it bad enough to now have it :)

Got a fixed 85mm that's very sensitive to light: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-1-8G/dp/B006TAP096/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449671642&sr=8-1&keywords=nikkor+85mm I use this one for through the crowd shots on concerts and portraits and sometimes for the hell of it, the damned thing is fun to use.

50mm I got as a gift, also very sensitive to light: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-1-8G/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449671767&sr=8-1&keywords=nikkor+50mm It mostly lives on my other camera for every day use as I'm trying to learn fully manual photography.

A 18-105mm zoom that came with my other camera. Not a very good lens but comes handy when I have no idea what to expect. Got it with a used Nikon D90 camera. This is an older camera with poor video capability. But it has many pro features that I'm really starting to miss on D3300, like additional buttons and a second dial and an LCD screen.

u/SketchyMcSketch · 1 pointr/Cameras

Thanks for the trove of info! He likes general shooting. So I think I'll get the 35mm for him. One last question, though. How would this compare to the 50mm in my previous post? The f/1.8 seems to be the same, but where would this lens differ vs. the AF-D 50mm?

u/X_Nightman_X · 1 pointr/photography

I would like to buy a either a Nikon 50mm f/1.8G or a 35mm f/1.8G lens. I'm still fairly new to photography and though I think I know what I'm getting when I choose between 35mm and 50mm, I'm not really sure if I'm making the right decision or thinking this through properly. What lens would you recommend purchasing and can you explain why? Thanks!

u/Praelium · 1 pointr/photography

Thank you for the reply.

I'm leaning towards the D5300 right now, since bracketing and intervalometer are features that I might want to play with in the future. But I'll be sure to ask the store owner to let me use the camera to make sure I like it.

You seem to know quite a bit about different camera models. Do you know if there are any major differences between the D5300 and T5i Rebel bodies?

Finally: Lens. This is the lens that the store owner recommended:

Nikon AF-S 50mm

Any thoughts on that? For reference, the camera I checked out from school included this lens:

Canon EF 35mm f/2

I really enjoyed it, especially exploring the close depth of field. However, it costs twice as much so I understand I'd be sacrificing some features.

u/ketogasm · 1 pointr/foodphotography

I would recommend getting a fixed 50mm lens. This is the one I have for my Nikon (f/1.8): http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458867860&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+lens+af-s+50mm It's super affordable in comparison to the f/1.4 and is great for that blurry depth of field look. It's a great lens, I love it!

u/crimsonskunk · 1 pointr/SonyAlpha

Without saying anything about lens quality here are some price comparisons.

[Nikon D3300 w/ kit] (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-Focus-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B00HQ4W1QE) $447, [35mm 1.8] (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0) $177, [50mm 1.8] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004Y1AYAC/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=cpc02-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004Y1AYAC) $197


Sony A6000 w/ kit $650, 35mm 1.8 $450, 50mm 1.8 $250

I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, just making a comparison. On the Sony you get OSS with the lenses which drives the price up. If you are trying to save money though, OSS might not be that important.

u/SuperShaker · 1 pointr/itookapicture

Is there a Nikon equivalent? I already own this

u/picmandan · 1 pointr/itookapicture

It would be the excellent 50mm 1.8D or the ever slightly more excellent 50mm 1.8G.

The primary difference is that the "D" version is older and lacks a focus motor, so it only auto-focuses on Nikon bodies that already have a focus motor built in. The "G" version includes the focus motor in the lens. There are a few other differences as well.

Additionally, there's the 50mm 1.4D and 1.4G, if you want even further abilitiy to defocus backgrounds. (D=no focus motor, G=with focus motor.)

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 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-1-8G-Lens/dp/B004Y1AYAC

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

u/D9352 · 1 pointr/Cameras

Can't go wrong with a 50mm.

u/Vinc3ntPh4m · 1 pointr/Beginning_Photography

I bought this one. It seems to have jumped up in price a bit for whatever reason...if you shop around a bit you might find it for around £140ish instead.

u/Nikobug · 1 pointr/photography

My wife received this for xmas https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01NACAIOK/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

My question is, she wants to take a bunch of photos on the fly of our daughter (2 years old) but the current lenses don't seem to quite cut it. Could this just be from learning or would a better lens help? The one I heard alot about is this one https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC

If it is a learning curve, what books/websites would you recommend? Thank you for your replies.

u/Plan2Exist18 · 1 pointr/photomarket

I believe it is actually the FX. Here is a link to the lens on Amazon

u/Iamthetophergopher · 1 pointr/photography

Yep, you have a solid starter lens kit:

  1. 18-55 non-VR

  2. 18-55 VR; the difference between these two is that the VR one has Vibration Reduction. This is a form of optical stablilization, allowing you to shoot in situations that might require a slower shutter speed and the lens will do its best to negate small movements while taking the shot. This is a great feature! The focal range and apertures (how much light the lens lets in as well as the depth of field, blurriness, the lens will allow you to have) are the same with both of these lenses. It is a normal focal range from a little bit wide (18mm) to a little bit tele (55mm). The VR one is the better one to keep, you don't need them both, you could sell the first one for 60 bucks, maybe?

  3. 55-200, this will start at the 55mm focal length from the above lenses and stretch all the way out to 200mm, which is a pretty decent zoom range. No stabilization

  4. 70-300, this lens starts at the 70mm range, so a modest tele (good for portraits as it is a flattering focal range for faces) to 300mm, which is the start of a decent telephoto range for sports and wildlife that won't scurry away if you get too close. Also has stabilization

    3 and 4 have a lot of overlap. They both have similar aperture capabilities and focal ranges. One starts a little wider, at 55 vs 70, but the other stretches longer at 300 vs 200. The 70-300 has optical stabilization, so this would be the one I would pick if the optical quality is good. As far as optical quality, you might want to ask the Nikon folks (I'm a Canon guy) on which of the two lenses are better. I personally think having both is a little overkill and would keep the one with the better optical quality, then sell the non-VR 18-55 and the worse of the two long range zooms and take that money and get a 50mm 1.8 prime (meaning a fixed focal length) to allow you to play with really cool narrow depth of field photos and nice blurry backgrounds. This is always fun for people just starting to shoot. Plus a f/1.8 lens will allow you to shoot in really dark scenarios where as the other lenes, at f3.5 and f/4.5 maximums, won't. Lower the f-stop, the more light the lens lets in. They can be found for relatively cheap

    If you did this, you would have the following:

  • Nikon D40x
  • 50mm f/1.8 for a nice, normal view similar to what our eyes can see and can shoot in low light, but is a fixed focal range of 50mm
  • 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 with VR for a nice mix of wide-ish angle and some normal angle shots all in one lens, but will be limited by the smaller apertures in low light, but has vibration control
  • 55-200mm/70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 (I would choose the 70-300 VR most likely) that lens you have a lot of reach for far away objects like sports or non-skitish wildlife.
u/AcidUK · 1 pointr/photography

I don't know much about the canon side of things, but from a nikon perspective, your best option would be a 50mm lens and a used APS-C body.

The best 50mm lens would be a af-s 50mm 1.8g (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-1-8G/dp/B004Y1AYAC). Used price isn't far off new (£150).

That won't leave much in the budget, so an alternative would be the older 50mm (slightly poorer quality) - the big drawback is that you will lose the autofocus. You can pick one of those up (called a D series rather than a G) for about £50 used on ebay.

Camera wise, I'd go for either a D3000 (£50 used on ebay for body only) or a D80 (£80).

As others have said, spend the money on the lens rather than the body if you want good quality pictures.

u/e7series · 1 pointr/a6300

Could you explain that to me on why the 35mm on a crop sensor is not as wide as I may think.

I'm new to the Sony game and have been using Nikon's for the last few years. I purchased this Nikon 50mm fixed lens a while ago to use on my Nikon d5200 and was not a fan because of how tight it was indoors - http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-Focus-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1463082443&sr=1-3&keywords=nikon+50mm

Would I experience the same with the Sony 35mm or will it be wider than the above lens?

u/Timeuhr · 1 pointr/photography

I don't know why everyone puts cleaning gear in such high priority, my gear is still perfectly clean after 3 years of use. A good bag will hold loads of dust away from your gear.
Together with my first Dsrl (I'm a Canon user but I got to work with Nikon cameras quite often) I got the essential stuff:

  • Adobe Lightroom - heads up the best software to edit and store your RAWs in my opinion
  • Tripod - my first tripod was quite cheap because I was a on a low budget, but it did it's job till I moved to Manfrotto
  • Remote shutter release - Should do it's job, if you want to shoot timelapse you'll have to buy an intervalometer remote
  • SD cards - I suggest to always go with class 10 cards if you mainly shoot RAW and videos (high data rates)

    After all that stuff I got my first prime lens. The 50mm f/1.8 (Canon).

    The good old so called nifty fifty helped me to learn so much about composition and framing because you have to think about how to frame your subject rather than to just use zoom etc. It also has such a great sharpness and beautiful bokeh. It's a really great lens for portraits! Of course this also applies to the Nikon 50mm.

    The Nikon equivalent to Canons 50mm f/1.8 lens runs around $190 which will give you great optical performance, a lens pouch, plus if you ever feel like upgrading from your D3200 the flexibility of being able to use this lens with all of Nikon's Dsrl (internal autofocus motor).
u/jacobradocsay · 1 pointr/astrophotography

I was looking into getting either a lens or a sky tracker, I only can afford one right now and I wanted to know what would be more beneficial to astrophotography. (I currently have a D3200, the kit lens 18-55 f3.4-f5.6 and and a 70-200 f4-f5.6) Okay that out of the way the lens I'm looking at is a 50mm f1.8 or the same thing in a 35 mm f1.8 heres the link to the 50mm :
(https://www.amazon.ca/Nikon-50mm-1-8G-AF-S-NIKKOR/dp/B004Y1AYAC?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&redirect=true&ref_=s9_simh_gw_p421_d0_i2 )
or I could get a skytracker I was thinking the iOptron Skytracker. Which one would be more beneficial for standard astrophotography if Im shooting in dark locations the and usually just milky way and constellations? The tracker or faster lens?

u/istguy · 1 pointr/photography

I'm getting ready to go on vacation, and I'm considering buying a new lens to celebrate and have fun with. Currently, I'm shooting with a D60, and I have the 18-55mm kit lens + the 55-200 telephoto lens.

The pictures I'll be taking on the trip will probably be a mix of shots of scenery/landscapes and my friends.

I would love to get an 18-200mm lens, but the Nikon one is simply out of my price range at $600. Is the Sigma 18-200 an acceptable substitute? I like the 18-200mm coverage, because it would be very nice to just take the one lens, and not worry about changing it.

I'm also considering getting a prime lens instead, because in the future I'd like to do some better indoor shooting. Possibly the 35mm Nikon or the 50mm. My sense is that the 35mm would be great for landscapes on my trip, but that the 50mm might be better for taking pics of friends. Am I wrong?

I'd welcome any advice/opinion on which lens to get, and which lens(es) to carry with my traveling. Thanks in advance.

u/captmkg · 0 pointsr/photography
Hi all.

I'm currently in the market to try and upgrade my current gear for my Nikon D7100, and I would appreciate some feedback / suggestions / general thoughts on my choices.

Thanks in advance!

Current Gear & Amazon Links

Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens

Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

Possible Lens:

Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye Nikkor Lens

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens

Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens

Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens

Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR FX Lens

Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens

What I'm thinking:

From the potential lens that I could get, I definitely want to invest in the 18-300mm lens.

With that lens added to my current gear, I could then get rid of the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lens from my gear. Changing my total lens count from six to five.

I want to keep the 10-24mm lens. I don't see the purpose of having the 10.5mm lens, so I must just cut that out.

The lens from the potential list (24-70mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, 24-85mm f2.8) I could remove from my list because if I understand this correctly, this seems more of a choice for people who want that extra step in the f stop.

I'm in a debate about which one of these to chose from to either replace or upgrade the 35mm I have in my bag, and the two I'm looking at are 50mm f1.8D and 50mm f1.8G. I'm just not sure if it is worth the upgrade in terms of a better overall picture or just to stick with the 35mm.

I am a little bit confused about the 85mm that I have and whether to upgrade it with the 60mm or the 105mm. If I understand that macro world of lens correctly, the 60mm would be the ideal choice, correct?

Lastly, I am in debate about keeping the 40mm with my given choices. I'm also not aware of what the 85mm f1.8 could offer, if it will replace a lens or just add another option to my gear bag.

In summation, here is the current gear:

Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

What I will most likely keep if I go through my possible changes:

- Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
+ Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
- Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
- Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
+ Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens

My new gear set:

Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
Maybe one of the 50mm or the 85mm f1.8

Any thoughts would be appreciated on this.

Thanks again in advance!