Photography question

2poodles2Love

Hello!

I've been MIA lately with our big move to Ohio, and since life has been crazy!  I'm wanting to spend more time learning photography and taking more pictures.  So for all of you that are into photography, I had a few questions about lenses.

I have the Nikon kit lens, 18-55mm AF-S VR and the same in the 55-200mm.  I also have the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and I love that one!  I want to sell my first two and possible get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.  (Budget only allows for the f/1.8 and not the f/1.4).

What are your thoughts on this?  Thanks for your help! 

k8elee03

Warning: I am an enabler. Also, there are many people with much better knowledge about cameras and photography than me, I feel pretty clueless most of the time.

I don't know what body you have, but I'm assuming it's one of the entry levels, and you probably know that you have to make sure you get lenses with the AF-S, i.e. autofocus built into the lens. Pretty sure there aren't any issues with that and any of the lenses you've mentioned, but it's just something that has to be said. 

Now for the enabling. The way I see it, a DSLR is something to which you can always add things. So, in my mind, it's not a matter of should I get this lens and not that, it's more of I'll get this lens first and then later get that lens. 

Of the lenses you've mentioned, the only one I definitely wouldn't bother keeping is the 18-55. Unless you really like the wider angle of it and maybe you want to shoot landscapes, it's sort of useless. The 55-200 isn't the best lens on the planet, but in my humble opinion, it has a place and can be useful. Obviously, it's useless indoors, but it's a great lens for the beach, for example, because you have a nice range and lots and lots of light. If you wanted to shoot an outdoor sporting event from the stands, you'd want something with longer range than the 75 end of the Tamron. And, as far as lenses go, the 55-200 is pretty much dirt cheap. I'm considering selling my 55-200 to get a bit longer range, actually, but I think a cheap zoom is worth having.

I have a 35 and it's great, especially for inside. I also have the Tamron 28-75, and it's also a great lens, and it's really versatile. I took the pics in my siggy with the 28-75. I really can't recommend one over the other because I think they're both fantastic. Maybe try the Tamron because you already have a prime, and if your prime is wide enough for your use inside your house, you could probably skip the 35. Primes are really sharp, though. 

Sorry for all my rambling, I guess my suggestion is keep your cheap zoom, and get the Tamron and eventually the 35 if you still think you need it.

Have fun!

ETA: I can't believe I have more to say. The only drawback to the Tamron, for me, is that it's a bit heavy, especially compared to a prime. Normally not a big deal, but it can be a pain at the end of a long day at a theme park or something like that. Just something to consider

MrsChelseaP09

Sending you a PM.

2poodles2Love

Thanks for your recommendations and opinions.  I appreciate it!  I do have an entry level, the Nikon D3100.  I think I will sell the 18-55mm and then invest in the Tamron and a 35mm lens.  I love the 50, but I feel limited doing indoor shots.  Thanks again!

ChangeOfPace

Kate, if do decide to sell your 55-200mm, can you give me a heads up?  I might be interested.

ChangeOfPace

2P2L, I think what's the best decision for you really boils down to what kind of photography you do.  I've been wanting something like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 too, but the main thing that has stopped me from pulling the trigger is that I really like having the option of a longer focal length since I use my camera a lot when I travel.  If you do a lot of portraits and family and pet photography, you might not miss the longer end of the zoom as much.