Idiots Guide to Nikon Lenses .... WANTED

d00d

d00d

Messages
9,071
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not exactly new to Nikon SLRs but I'm spending more time with it and I've recently upgraded from a D40 to a D5300.

I've got 3 lenses ... 18-55mm, 18-135mm & a 35mm Prime. With just a few hundred quid to spend, I'd like to get a zoom to use for anything from street to macro! (hopefully).

Nikon AF-S 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 G ED VR Lens - DX Format

at £239 at Jessops sounds interesting and cheap, in fact when compared to other lens prices, almost too good to be true.

http://www.jessops.com/accessories/lenses/nikon

OK forgetting about other manufacturers like Tamron and other retailers for a moment, and concentrating on the Jessops site (RRP?), can anyone attempt to explain things like:

If the 55-200 is £221 why is the 55-300 only £18 more at £239?
Then there's the 80-400 at £939?
There's a 17-55 at £1049 while the 18-55 is at £229 ... I know the first has a bigger aperture but ...

It all seems a little inconsistent to the novice.

Thanks for your patience.
 
In short, you get what you pay for!
Perhaps a bit more to it than that. The 55-200 and the 300 version are ok lenses, but if you look too closely you'll see that they can be quite soft. The 300 version is also a bit slower to focus.
The 17-55? Is quite likely nikons best dx lens. And can be more than the body it is on. One way of looking at the quality and truer value of the kens is to compare its retail value with its s/h value. There are some excellent lenses from Tamron and sigma that are worth considering too.
 
The f number makes a big difference in cost. The lower the f number the bigger the glass will to suck in more light so this also effects cost a lot. This is why a 55-200 f4-5.6 will cost a lot less then a 70-200 f2.8. Then there is also how many they are going to sell. The more they can make of a lens the cheaper they become. They its how well they are built. Things like if it alloy or plastic. also down to how tight tolerances are.
 
Last edited:
If you want a nice carry around versatile lens, try the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 macro DC HSM OS lens, it covers a lot of corners, sharp pictures, takes good macro, can be used fully auto, or manual for macro. Mine virtually lives on the camera. A lovely regular use lens.
 
To get an idea of some of the nikon lenses available have a look at camera price buster nikon lens. It can be a little daunting with the number available and the different numbering/lettering. A general idea is:

Dx = lens for crop sensor cameras. Not designed for use on full frame, some can be used on full frame cameras with some disadvantages.
Fx = lens for use with full frame and crop sensor camera
f number = maximum aperture size of lens
VR = vibration reduction to help reduce camera/lens shake when hand holding.
D = aperture ring
G = no aperture ring
AF-S = built in focusing motor-important for d5300 as it has no built in AF motor

There are several reasons for price differences, build quality, image quality (IQ) and how fast it is (f number). Generally the faster, better built and better IQ the lens has the more expensive it'd going to be. An example is the two you mentioned, the 17-55 f2.8 and 18-55 f3.5-5.6, here it's built quality, IQ and two stops faster aperture you are paying the extra for. There are some lenses like the 85mm f1.8 G and 85mm f1.4 G where unless you know have to get the most out of the benefits of the more expensive lens then the cheaper one would be good enough.

If you are happy to go second hand there are some good priced lens out there. The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR AF-S lens is a good lens, second hand they can go for around £200. There are some ok lenses by the liked of sigma/tamron.
 
Last edited:
d00d said:
If the 55-200 is £221 why is the 55-300 only £18 more at £239?
Then there's the 80-400 at £939?.
Click to expand...

Once lenses go over 300mm they tend to get really expensive, the 80-400 is also of a much better build quality than the 55-300 which makes a huge difference to the price.
 
Thanks so much for all the info. (y)

Will be back with a couple of question later.
 
Also worth noting that any zoom lens listed with a single f value (like f2.8 or f4) have a constant maximum aperture across the whole zoom range, lenses listed as f4.5-5.6 have a variable maximum aperture across the zoom range, so the lens actually gets slower the further you zoom in (slower in terms of how much light it lets in)

Generally speaking, constant aperture lenses are of better construction and IQ than variable aperture lenes, and thus more expensive
 
The 17-55 f/2.8 is probably the best mid range zoom you can get for a CSC (DX). Not only is it f/2.8 it is also optically better designed as it is a pro spec lens. If I were you I'd stretch your budget and find a decent 2nd hand copy.
 
Thanks again. (y)

What I really like the sound of is the Nikon 18-200 ... small, lightweight, versatile ... but not cheap.

Wondering if there are any good Sigma or Tamron lenses to fit a D5300?

On the amazon site I see

Sigma 18-200 from £200, 18-250 from £280

Tamron 18-200 from £132, 18-270 from £320

all new (I think) ... Nikon DX fit?? ... Anyone familiar with any of these?
 
No experience of the sigma or Tamron but maybe worth considering a used nikon 18-200 vr1. It's a decent enough lens and shouldn't cost you much more than either of those you mention.
 
Well .... 2 days ago I bought a used Nikon 18-200 VRll ... not a bad price, private sale, went to the guy's house and spent about 2 hours talking Nikon gear. I tried the lens on my D5300 hand held but wasn't amazed, discovered the VR was switched off, much improved with it switched on.

Now I have a question, something that's just occurred to me ... should VR (on the 18-200 or any other lens) be switched off when not in use?
 
Last edited:
d00d said:
Well .... 2 days ago I bought a used Nikon 18-200 VRll ... not a bad price, private sale, went to the guy's house and spent about 2 hours talking Nikon gear. I tried the lens on my D5300 hand held but wasn't amazed, discovered the VR was switched off, much improved with it switched on.

Now I have a question, something that's just occurred to me ... should VR (on the 18-200 or any other lens) be switched off when not in use?
Click to expand...

No reason to switch it off when not in use. The only time your advised to switch it of is when used on a tripod, it would atempt to cancel out vibrations that don't exist, this creates a "conflict" within the lens which can/does impair image quality.
As I say, no reason to switch of when not in use. :)
 
Leave it on. It can drain your battery a bit more. But that's all. I leave in on when on a tripod too. Never had a problem.
 
Thanks guys that's what I wanted to hear. :)

I was thinking that maybe I could damage the VR mechanism when in transit if left on.
 
Graham W said:
No reason to switch it off when not in use. The only time your advised to switch it of is when used on a tripod, it would atempt to cancel out vibrations that don't exist, this creates a "conflict" within the lens which can/does impair image quality.
As I say, no reason to switch of when not in use. :)
Click to expand...

An alternative school of thought on this:

http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

That's not the only test that suggests that VR reduces sharpness when it is not needed. Worth reading.
 
Not read the whole article but I think it's fair to say that VR isn't going to help at the lower and higher hand held shutter speeds.
I'm reluctant to give numbers because obviously it depends entirely on how steady your hands are and at which end of the focal range you find your self.
For me, I would say 500th and above at the long end and 60th and below at the short VR aint going to help.
Depends whether you can see enough difference to make it worth keep switching it on and off. I keep it on for hand held and monopod and off for tripod.
 
Thanks again for your input. (y)

I know the 18-200 is not a Macro lens but I thought it might come in useful when doing close up shots ... but no.

Can anyone recommend any inexpensive Macro lenses for Nikon DX?

Thanks
 
If you can live with MF only, the older screw driven Tamron 90mm Macro delivers great images and should be fairly easy to find 2nd hand. The sigma 105mm is good too.
 
Nod said:
If you can live with MF only, the older screw driven Tamron 90mm Macro delivers great images and should be fairly easy to find 2nd hand. The sigma 105mm is good too.
Click to expand...

Even cheaper again would be one of Nikon's AIS Micro lenses. You'll be looking at manual everything on a D5300 but that's not a particularly big issue unless you're working in a hurry.

I've currently got a Micro 55mm 3.5 which I paid about £50 for including a Nikon extension tube to take it to full 1:1. It's a very, very good lens, and possibly the sharpest lens I've ever tried. Have also played with the 105mm f/4 version in the past and both lengths are also available as 2.8's. They're a nice cheap way into macro photography.

Also worth reading some reviews of the Raynox 150 and 250 adapters as another cheap macro option.
 
Thanks Nod and Graham, I may lookout for those lenses you mention ... second-hand.

Glad you mentioned Raynox, I bought a 250 a couple of years ago and soon wrote it off as rubbish: couldn't get a clear focused image, massive vignette. But I'd only tried it on a couple of zooms (18-55 & 18-135). Today for the first time I tried it on my 35mm prime ... and hey ... maybe I don't need to buy a macro lens after all.

I guess it works on a prime because there's less glass inside.
 
d00d said:
Thanks Nod and Graham, I may lookout for those lenses you mention ... second-hand.

Glad you mentioned Raynox, I bought a 250 a couple of years ago and soon wrote it off as rubbish: couldn't get a clear focused image, massive vignette. But I'd only tried it on a couple of zooms (18-55 & 18-135). Today for the first time I tried it on my 35mm prime ... and hey ... maybe I don't need to buy a macro lens after all.

I guess it works on a prime because there's less glass inside.
Click to expand...

It's not because of that, it's more likely You weren't using the Raynox properly, it's a brilliant little addition which can produce absolutely stunning images.

If you were getting vignetting it's because you were using it on a wide lens, and the lean is seeing the frame of the holder. You shouldn't really consider anything wider than 50mm.

Focusing is tricky but it always is with macro, and that's all done manually by moving slightly closer or away from the subject, rather than using the focus of your lens. Get it right, it's tac sharp.

Try it on a longer lens!

It really is a great piece of kit, especially for £40.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Jim ... you're absolutely right.

I'm now going to get into some serious macro photography ... having live preview with a tilting screen helps ... puting time and patience in too.
 
Hi ... me again ... dreaming about my next new (used?) lens .... a wide angle zoom ... not fisheye ... for my Nikon D5300.

Now let me see ... there's Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang and more.

there's 10-20, 11-18, 10-24, 12-24 and more.

I want to take shots like these: https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/pool/

And the price of that Sigma 10-20 looks good.

All input welcome.

Thanks
 
This would be better on a separate thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top