Buying my first lens

seanpphotos

seanpphotos

Messages
42
Name
Sean
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had my Nikon D3500 for almost a year now and so far have only had the included kit lens to take photos with, which to be honest for me has been a good lens and I think I've managed to get quite a few really nice shots with it.

But I think now is the time to purchase my first additional lens but due to not knowing or understanding much about lenses I'm finding it tricky deciding what to go for.

I've mostly enjoyed taking up close shots of flowers with my kit lens, but for a while I've wanted to be able to get some half decent photos of birds however the lens I have doesn't have much zoom capabilities so it's been hard to do that.

What lens would be ideal for me in regards to 'zoom'?
I've looked a bit at the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR, would this be ideal for zooming on to birds (enough without getting so close to scare them away).

Other lenses in my budget are the Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Zoom and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G AF-S but I'm not sure if either of these would be suitable for what I've said I'd like.

Any advice would be appreciated.
 
For birding, the 70-300's are much vaunted.
I don't do birds though... b-u-t, the Nikon 'Kit' 55-300 had the same reach, and is a much cheaper lens. And I find it pretty Oh-Kay for most general purpose stuff.
The 55-200 is even cheaper, and used to be bundled with the 18-55 in the entry and middle range 'kits, until the 55-300 took over.
Now... the 55-200, I have to say is a cracking VFM bit of glass, especially 2nd hand, where most are to be found these days, since most folk want that must have extra length.
But anyway, there's a big 'wow' factor that comes with long lenses; they crop so much from the frame, isolate and magnify the subject and concentrate the viewer's attention there, b~u~t, longer the lens, more effective magnification you get, more you risk hitting the buffers. Old rule-of-thumb used to be to keep the shutter speed above 1/focal length of lens, to minimise hand-holding-blurr, and when zoom lenses started to become popular, suggestion was to keep the shutter above 1/'maximium' lens length. because the lens doesn't get any lighter or particularly shorter (if at all) when you zoom. Modern Image Stabilisation, has chucked the question wide open again, with suggestion that IS 'may' help you hand hold perhaps three stops slower... but that IS just a suggestion, and personally I don't think that it makes much if any particular odds. When daughter started GCSE togging, we did some shutter speed limbo exercises, and with better hand holding technique, we were achieving the same three or four stops slower shutter, with old manual lenses or IS turned off, as claimed for it turned 'on'
And, I am a bit of a luddite, and pushing ever longer tele ranges in days past.... you CAN have too much of a good thing! O/H was the one for feathered creatures, and from the very off, with such a narrow angle of view getting the damn things into the frame can be tricky enough.... was forever listening to her grumble, coming to have a look, and having to 'zoom-out' then back ion again, once I'd spotted her target! If you don't have the extra reach, you cant use it, and you don't have anywhere near the problem, finding and framing... you just have to be a tad less greedy.
On which basis; suggestion is, that a 300 may be a bit of a muddling length, enough to get you that initial 'wow', but really not long enough to get you 'so' close, where many folk, go with 500+ lenses, plus the crop factor of a smaller sensor camera.
On which basis, a 2nd hand 55-200m has a lot of merit. Its long enough to let you get plenty of initial 'wow'; and on an APS-C sensor camera, it has the effective focal length of a 300 on full-frame... so if/when you start to hit the buiffers, it is likely to encourage you to work on that hand holding, and on stalking skills and such and not be so entrenched as to expect the gear to do it all for you....and it's 'cheap'... did I mention that? Advantage there is it leaves pennies in the pot, for a 2nd stage to upgrade to a 300 zoom or depending how the experience has panned... something else, probably longer still, if birding takes off.
 
seanpphotos said:
Other lenses in my budget are the Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Zoom and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G AF-S but I'm not sure if either of these would be suitable for what I've said I'd like.

Any advice would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

These lenses wont help with birds.

In your position a 70-300mm might be a good move and other than that a close focusing lens might help you with close ups of flowers etc.

Just for thinking about...

Macro lenses are good for flower shots and might be worth looking into, they can also be used for non close up stuff too such as portraits and general longer length shooting. Something like a 100mm f2.8 macro might be worth looking at, at some point.

Another lens which could be worth a look is a 18-50mm f2.8. This will give you an almost identical zoom range to your kit lens, if you have a 18-50mm f3.5-5.6, but the constant f2.8 will help with lower light shots and for getting thinner depth of field. These lenses are usually "better" than the similar focal range f3.5-5.6 kit lenses too.

Yet another thing to look at at some point could be a 24 or 35mm f1.8.

Photography can be an expensive hobby :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed info and help :)

I have now also come across this Tamron 70-300mm lens, which is a fair bit cheaper than the Nikon 70-300mm I was first looking at.

I was just wondering if it's worth me getting it but it's actually the fact it is much cheaper that's making me think twice as I'd rather spend the extra and get something decent to begin with.

Upon further searching on Amazon I'm further confused with these two Nikon lenses, which seem to be the same even though they're around £100 different in price, am I missing something?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-JAA829DA-4-5-6-3G-ED-VR/dp/B01KJ8UMKK/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/JAA829DA-AF-P-70-300-4-5-6-3G-Lens/dp/B07STZSZCN/
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I don't think 300mm at the long end is enough for birding unless you can get really close, but OTOH longer lenses are often very expensive of of lower image quality.

As far as I can see those are the same lens in the pages you linked. The lower priced seller seems well rated and you should be protected by buying through Amazon, but just be aware of the maxim about 'if something looks too good to be tue then it usually is'.
 
A 70-300 is generally the first step in most peoples photographic expansion, so its a good option - although for birds you may find it still a little short unless you can get close in your garden. Cheaper lenses are often a little soft, especially at the long end - I'd go for a Nikon over a Tamron.

The 10-20 is significantly wider than your current lens and won't help with birds, and neither would the 35mm prime.
 
Thanks guys, I've ended up ordering myself the 70-300mm Nikon lens and look forward to receiving it.

Is it worth getting a lens hood for it as well?
One like this?
 
seanpphotos said:
Is it worth getting a lens hood for it as well?
One like this?
Click to expand...

The hood should come with the lens in same box. Every Nikon or any branded lens I've bought has always come with a hood (even if it's not mentioned), so I'd hold off from buying a separate hood as you'll likely find one in the box with the lens.
 
Well my new lens arrived today. Unfortunately no hood was included so would that one I linked to be an ideal choice or is there a better one?

Haven't had a lot of time to really test it out yet but I'm very impressed and happy with it. The focal length on it should allow me to get some nice bird pictures (in our garden at least) which I really look forward too.

Here's 2 I've taken with it.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top