madcapmagishion

OK! As I stated on another post I am fairly new to photography (just got my first DSLR a couple of weeks ago, a Nikon D3100 and it came with the kit lens
AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. Wednesday I ordered a new Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens,
from Amazon and am wondering what should be my next lens purchse? Someone has suggested it should be either a 35 or a 50mm lens I'm leaning towards
the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens, but would appreciate any suggestions on what you all think. Is there anything more must have, in your opinion?

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

My suggestion is learn how to use what you have before you get caught up in what you think you need next. Learn your camera inside and out, learn the glass you have. What do you like about each lens, what don't you like? THEN start thinking about your next purchase.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

depends on what youre wanting to capture

BGenie Loc: Sacramento, CA

I agree with the other two and add...

You need to decide what you like to photograph the most, from your other post it seems to be landscapes. So, once you are familiar with the equipment you have, get out of the 'comfort zone' to the next learning curve, in the direction you like to go.
If you plan on sticking with landscapes, I'd suggest a nice tri-pod and 'stitching' software to take panoramas.

madcapmagishion

I already have a nice Manfrotto tripod and a mono pod that doubles as a walking stick. The software I definitely need for panoramic shots. So far my main intrest has been Landscapes, but I would really like to get into wildlife shots,(thats why I otdetred the 55-300mm)also candid interesting people pictures. And also sports and action photo's, withg maybe some macro pic's thrown in. But other than the stihing software right now I'm not that interested in photoshop all that much yet.(maybe after I learn my cameras capabilities) Thanks for the advice that has been given. OH! And my daughter and son-in-law informs me that I need a good portrait lens for my future grandchild.

PhotoKenetic

The 50mm f/1.8 would work well for portraits.

Michael O' Loc: Midwest right now

The prior responders pretty much have it. I would only add that you are limited somewhat with your tele because of its maximum aperture. And you mentioned portraiture of coming grandchild. You might want to consider an 85 mm (the perfect lens length for 35 mm portraiture, and get it in the largest lens diameter you can afford in a good lens -- as a 1.8, or at least a 2.0 or 2.8 (you don't have to get a Cannon EFL f 1.0) so that you will have the capability of shooting in low light -- where you are somewhat limited now, whether it be landscape work, or kids around the house shooting with natural light for the softer lighting without going nuts with an array of lights , filters, reflectors and such. Too, the larger lens will be very useful in extending your capability to shoot in the fading light of the sports work I think you mentioned -- and you can't postpone the match or game, you've got to be able to shoot it in whatever light is available, cloudy or later in the day. You can always up the speed or close down the lens, but you can only open it up to its maximum f-stop, whatever that is. For that reason I always buy each lens in the widest aperture possible, except for the variables, and you have one of those that will cover most of the world you want to capture. After an 85 mm you might want to go to a 14 or 20 mm (and you'll really be able to get super depth of field nature shots) in the widest aperture available -- also usable for landscape work. Then your 4th lens might be a big piece of glass in 400 or 500 (maybe f-4) for sports again if you really want to do that much of it. I use two identical bodies, one with a 70 - 200 and a 500 or 600 on the other, mounted on a good monopod with a short top-mounted bar on the top. With that rig I can sit at a corner of the soccer field and shoot at either end, and everywhere in between. And my fellow photogs don't complain about me having two or three monopods or a couple of tripods sprawled around in everyone's way. Like the other folks said, you just have to work your way into expanding your equipment according to how you are led to use it. Never-the-less, you can't go wrong with the widest aperture available in the lens of your choice. Too, I believe it best to have 2 or 3 excellent lenses rather than 4 or 5 mediocre ones. Amazingly lenses improve with age (improving in lessening chromatic or spherical aberration), but you probably won't notice it without some special testing. So just buy the best you can initially afford. You'll likely be happier with fewer but better and lower f-stop lenses than a bunch of limited lenses.
And if you don't want to splurge, perhaps you could secure a job shooting a local team or league for some offsetting bucks. I shot the Chicago Fire with the contract holder one year. Also shot a Mexican 73-team soccer league, and the majority of the players wanted shots of themselves in action. Although its not my sport, you could probably do that with a baseball league too.
You can also set up with the organizers of tournaments too to shoot team play all day long, especially if you have someone to help you process and collect for the photos buyers select. I've shot horse races in Germany, Italian and Arab motorcycle races in Tripoli, Libya, and rodeo bull, bronco, and pony riders on the national circuit and a bunch of people always want action shots of themselves. Go to a local Rod and Gun club and you'll find people who will want shots of themselves on the firing line or in the clubhouse with the trophies in the background. Again, if you have big glass you won't have to fool with a bunch of lighting paraphernalia. Everybody shoots landscapes, and it's interesting, but how many will you be competing against in sports photo work? Few, if you decide you want to do much of it. Catch your local high school or college football and soccer and bizball matches, and maybe do track meets. The only photog you'll see out there will be someone shooting strictly for the local newspaper, or some friend or parent with a point and shoot. Volleyball and basketball are possibilities too, but you probably have the lighting to worry about again with the relatively low light coupled with fast movement. Infinite interesting and challenging possibilities out there. Pick one or two and give it a whirl and pay for some additional "big glass" as you evolve your direction and your equipment. Have fun !

Unclewiggley Loc: Winter Haven, FL

Michael O, you make some very good points. When my oldest daughter was showing her horse I use to take a lot of pictures, especially when she was showing hunt seat over fences. Before I knew it I had all kinds of parents asking me to photograph their children jumping or with the horse as a portrait. I did quite well at that venue. Course that was back in the film days. In fact as some of the children grew up I ended up photographing their wedding.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

While I certainly will not attempt to argue against the 50mm f/1.8, I thought I'd relate my experience, hoping it may cause you to consider other aspects. I thought I wanted the 50mm, and I bought the 50mm f/1.4. I am very, very pleased with this lens. It yields truly "creamy" images. But, it's field of view is more like a 75mm, which is too long to let me get close. If I had it to do over (and I still may do it), I'd have gotten the 35mm f/1.8. That will give you more like a 50mm field of view and I'd bet it would be hard to tell the difference in the quality of the image between it and my 50mm.

Just a thought . . . . .

gessman Loc: Colorado

I don't know how fast you're moving in purchases but to give you macro with either lens you now have, a set of extension tubes, about $100 new for an auto set from Kenko on ebay. For wildlife/sports coverage now, a 2x tele-converter for the 300 for sports/wildlife, if it fits, maybe $300. That'll let you dabble with those areas without spending a lot, giving you versatility to try those areas to check for interest level. Then I'd shoot toward a 100-105 macro, whatever it is for Nikon, for macro and portraits and later perhaps longer real good glass for the wildlife and sports if I wasn't happy with the 300 and 2x. The extension tubes and 2x can probably be used later with whatever lens you get in the future so it's not a waste. They'll always be good to have in your kit. A 50 1.8 or 1.4 wouldn't hurt to have around either in low light.

SilverFox1953 Loc: Colorado

I have the same camera you have , same lens 18-55 and the 55-300 , I shoot anything I want with this two lenses, the 55-300 is an amazing lens , very sharp. I had the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S and the 50mm also AF-, between this two I prefer the 50mm , this are for low light photos.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

my first dslr was a Nikon d70S - with it I bought Nikon 18-200 - I have morphed thru a D200 and now have a D300. I have a number of lenses bought for different purposes but the 18-200 is my reach-for when I'm not doing a project with the D300 - for instance, flowers (use a 105 or 60mm macro) or a 360/180 panorama (use a 10.5 fisheye). It still has excellent reviews, it gives a good wide angle and a reasonably good reach into the distance with good inages throughout.
However, besides learning the camera - let what you want to shoot govern the lens. The 18-200 is, to paraphrase "an excellent jack of all trades, but master of only a few"

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

USE THE LENSES YOU HAVE. When you come to situations that they will not work is the time you need to look for another lens. If the wont focus on the bug you want to capture (I am trying to not say shoot) you may want to look at a macro. If you never have enough light you may want fast glass. If you can't get near enough to that bird or deer you may want to go longer. etc. etc. Just another point. If you spend your time doing photograpy you will end up getting better photos than any new lens will get you. Just my opinion. - Dave

dhelix33 Loc: Live in Raleigh, NC - Grew up in Teaneck, NJ

I am enthusiastic (maybe to the point of being anal) about the quality of images my cameras and I produce. – Because they can hold timeless moments that are many times captured in one shot. I do not know what type of photography is your focus, or who your target audience is, but I will share from my experience...

Purchased a Nikon D40 as my first DSLR years ago, to replace my aged - although trustworthy - Nikon F2 35mm film SLR. Have since progressed through the D5000 and currently own a D3100 and D5100. The D40 camera came with the same 'kit' lens you own. I quickly discovered that lens was not 'fast' enough for my needs. So I used the Nikkor 50mm prime F-mount lens that was on my F2 for a while, until I discovered that the 50mm prime converts to a field of view at 75mm with the 1.5x crop in the smaller APS-c sensor found in a DX format Nikon.

I use a blend of camera glass (Nikkor, Sigma, and Tamron). Have had a measure of success with the use of Nikon DX and FX DSLR imaging systems, because I am a stickler for understanding the technical specifications of the systems, and then being able to capture and create what I want from that technical knowledge in the field.

Something I take the time to do is insure that a lens is compatible with my cameras. There is no doubt that my Nikon D5100 was created to satisfy user concerns previous owners of the D5000 observed. The design, functional and innovative modifications from the D5000 to the D5100 were done quite nicely, I must say.

Nikon and Nikon ‘purists’ say that Nikkor lenses produce the ‘best imaging quality’. I can challenge the ‘best imaging quality’ presented by Nikon and Nikkor ‘purists’ in the images I have produced by less expensive (but equitable quality) Sigma and Tamron lenses.

With the popularity of the small sensor APS-c format found in the D5100 and other recent design Nikon DX format cameras, the standard ‘kit’ lens is often supplied at a very attractive price. As mentioned earlier, I discovered the 18-55mm Nikkor ‘kit’ lens provided with my D40 camera was lacking in features and in image quality. I took a photographer’s prerogative to replace the Nikkor 18-55mm lens with the Sigma 18-50mmf/2.8-4.5 OS - this glass is my workhorse on the DX format cameras I own.

Along with the large aperture of F2.8, the Sigma 18-50mm has an almost 3 to 1 zoom range, this compact lens is great for the manual setting shots I take, as well as quick snap shots on the fly. Also, because the lens has an f/2.8 aperture, this lens is capable of ‘fast’ photography - meaning it can be used hand held effectively in lower light, helping to eliminate blur from photos with Sigma OS (Optical Stabilization – same as VR on a Nikkor). Of course use of a tripod for night captures is my preference.

And finally - the glass in most lenses is good quality, although the final shape of a lens and the mechanisms surrounding it will vary by manufacturer. My former D40 and D5000, as well as my current D3100 and D5100 do not have a auto focus motor, so I purchase lenses with a built in focus motor.

By the way, I recently added a Nikon D700 FX to my camera bag.

Here is a link that shows and describes my Nikon DSLR equipment…

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1691960134184.2093517.1093178780&type=3

Here is a link to some of my recent work...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73877479@N00/sets/72157627582945437/show/

TJ28012 Loc: Belmont, NC

Be aware that the 50mm/1.8D requires an in-camera motor for autofocus. The 35mm/1.8G has it's own motor and can autofocus with all of the digital bodies.