Help choosing a DSLR and lens..

B

BertieTBE

Messages
85
Edit My Images
No
I'd really appreciate any advice on the following.

I have a budget of around £500 for my first entry level DSLR. I've decided on either the Nikon 3100 or 3200. My main reasons for going for the 3200 would be the higher resolution screen and generally a higher spec, but the 3100 is around £100 cheaper (body only). You might mind this comparison helpful: http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D3100

Do you think the 3200 is worth the extra money?

Secondly, the all important lens. I've decided on the 18-200 focal range.

How important is stabilisation technology in a lens? I'd be shooting a mixture of subjects, across the focal range.

Tameron (no image stabilisation), or Sigma? Nikon lenses are over budget.

Any helpful comments or advice greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Ben
 
the 18-200 lenses are all old designs & will be shown up by something like the D3200, better to get the Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250.
& yes, imo the D3200 is worth an extra £100.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree that the D3200 is worth £100 extra. That's not to say that the D3100 is poor in anyway, but the D3200 has an amazing sensor.

I'd think carefully about the lens though. All of the zooms that cover that sort range are a compromise in terms of image quality. The Nikon 18-200 is exceptional for this type of lens but does come at a price. I've been pretty unimpressed by the Sigma and Tamron super zooms though. If you're dead set on that sort of lens, maybe consider stretching to used Nikon 18-200, even if it means settling for a D3100.
 
gad-westy said:
I'd agree that the D3200 is worth £100 extra. That's not to say that the D3100 is poor in anyway, but the D3200 has an amazing sensor.

I'd think carefully about the lens though. All of the zooms that cover that sort range are a compromise in terms of image quality. The Nikon 18-200 is exceptional for this type of lens but does come at a price. I've been pretty unimpressed by the Sigma and Tamron super zooms though. If you're dead set on that sort of lens, maybe consider stretching to used Nikon 18-200, even if it means settling for a D3100.
Click to expand...

Thank you both for your thoughts.

Gad-westy, could you kindly elaborate on why you were disappointed with Sigma / Tamoron lenses? And, are you a professional / enthusiast? Not that I'm in any way dismissing your views, just that it occurred to me that your expectations may be different from mine as someone relatively new to photography. That said, I'm looking for images you could sell to a magazine.

In your view, what is it that gives a Nikon lens the edge? My budget is £500-550...lens and body.

Thanks again.
 
heidfirst said:
the 18-200 lenses are all old designs & will be shown up by something like the D3200, better to get the Tamron 18-270 or Sigma 18-250.
& yes, imo the D3200 is worth an extra £100.
Click to expand...

When you say "old designs", what would I gain from a newer Sigma / Tameron?

I'm no expert...but I do know the 18-270 Tameron has image stabilisation (IS). How important is IS in your view? Think the bigger Sigma is way over budget.

Do you have a preference between Tameron and Sigma? If so, why?

Thanks again.

Ben
 
I agree with Graham, having a amazing 24mp sensor then putting a super zoom on it is like, putting tractor wheels on a Ferrari.
 
Depends on what you want to photograph

My total outlay for my beginners kit was as follows-

D3100 plus 18-55 VR kit lens £284
Nikon 55-200 VR lens £125
Nikon 35mm f1.8 prime £150
Nikon SB-400 flash unit £95
Cokin ND Filters £40
Slik Tripod £70
Lowepro Slingshot bag £60

This adds up to just over £800 (bloody hell i didnt realise id spent that much!) but I have covered a wide variety of photography already including indoor (35mm) landscapes (18-55) and sports (55-200) and found the D3100 more than capable in ease of use and image quality

I personally wouldn't fork out the extra for the D3200 as you won't notice the difference and it frees up funds for equipment relevant to what photography you intend doing e.g.landscapes - tripod
 
BertieTBE said:
Thank you both for your thoughts.

Gad-westy, could you kindly elaborate on why you were disappointed with Sigma / Tamoron lenses? And, are you a professional / enthusiast? Not that I'm in any way dismissing your views, just that it occurred to me that your expectations may be different from mine as someone relatively new to photography. That said, I'm looking for images you could sell to a magazine.

In your view, what is it that gives a Nikon lens the edge? My budget is £500-550...lens and body.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a fair question. I'm just an amateur myself, I just know what I like and don't like. One of my faults (like many on here) is an obsession with lens performance, probably beyond what actually matters! My experience of them is that I've used the Nikon 18-200 VR1 and a Tamron 18-250 and 18-270. I owned the Nikon, the latter two were on my mother's camera rather than my own but I don't think that should make a difference. The Sigma options, I haven't used but reviews rarely seem favourable.

Problems as I see it. They all display a lot of distortion, particularly noticeable at the wider end. Got a bit sick of seeing buildings with banana shaped roofs! That's one gripe. In the case of the two Tamron's, I just wasn't impressed with the IQ. Whether it was sharpness, contrast colours, whatever I don't know but I just didn't like the results coming out of the camera. The Nikon lens is good though. I don't think it's amazing in terms of IQ but when you consider what it can do, it's impressive. There is now an 18-300 by the way which apparently performs very well which is one hell of an achievement. Would blow your entire budget and a bit more though.

All of these lenses though are jack of all trades which means there is usually a trade off. Great if you want the portability and convenience of one lens fits all as long as you're happy with the trade off. I can see no reason why a magazine would turn down an image from these, there are very few lenses incapable of producing a good clean image in the right hands but some make it easier than others.

What led me to choose a DSLR in the first place over some of the alternatives is the ability to fit a lens appropriate to the job so to that end, if I want a wide lens, I use a wide lens, if I want a telephoto I use a telephoto. I'm also a fan of 'fast' lenses particularly telephotos and that is one thing that no super zoom can offer. It's the more expensive route and it does mean I miss opportunities by having the wrong lens on sometimes but I prefer the results that I get.

This is all just my viewpoint. For every person like me there is somebody that will swear by 'superzooms' so make of it what you will. For your budget though, it would be possible to buy a used Nikon 18-200 and a D3100. Or go for a D3200 with the standard 18-55 kit lens and then work out what lens you'd prefer based on your experience.
 
Just go with the 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 like big nick and save yourself a large bit of wedge and better images to boot.
 
When buying 3rd party lenses (or any lens, come to that!), try the actual lens you're intending to buy before handing over the payment. QC issues aren't unknown. I'm another non-fan of superzoom lenses on SLRs - too many compromises are made in favour of convenience over IQ.

Don't forget the extras you're going to need. Spare batteries and bags can (if necessary) wait a little while (although both are a very good idea!) but you'll need at least one memory card and preferably a few!
 
BertieTBE said:
When you say "old designs", what would I gain from a newer Sigma / Tameron?
Click to expand...
better IQ.Both Tamron & Sigma are on about their 3rd generation of these superzooms & they have learned things & improved them,
I'm not a Nikon shooter so I turn to someone who is & is fairly well respected amongst them, Thom Hogan. His view of the Nikon 18-200 "This lens had its day with the 6mp and 10mp cameras, but shows its weaknesses clearly on the 16mp and 24mp cameras Nikon's been putting out recently".


I'm no expert...but I do know the 18-270 Tameron has image stabilisation (IS). How important is IS in your view?
Click to expand...
it has it's uses but it's not a universal panacea.
Do you have a preference between Tameron and Sigma? If so, why?
Click to expand...
it varies depending upon the individual lens - in some cases the Sigma may be better whilst in others the Tamron may be.
 
gad-westy said:
I can see no reason why a magazine would turn down an image from these, there are very few lenses incapable of producing a good clean image in the right hands but some make it easier than others.
Click to expand...

Does this include the Sigma 18-200? Nikon lenses are way over my budget.

I just want nice bright, reasonably sharp images (they don't have to be absolutely perfect)! Good colours are important, as these will compliment my articles, which is the main reason for the investment.

There are three main differences I have noticed between the 3100 and the 3200 (other than the price).

1. The sensor (14mp vs 24 mp)
2. Much higher higher resolution screen
3. The 3100 is a bit smaller, and so I don't like the feel of it as much.

Do you think these features are important? Will I notice the difference on an 18-200 lens? If so, how much?

Thank you all again for all your help. Really appreciate it!

Ben
 
Last edited:
As you've seemingly discounted the Pentax K30 as an option, and you're still concerned about MP, then wouldn't the logical conclusion be the 5100 twin lens kit on Amazon?
Similar £550 spend as the K30 combo, only without the weatherproofing and poorer noise.
So if it can only be a Nikon, for me, there's your dilemma solved.

Forget about 18-200 it'll be more compromised than the 55-200.

The outside alternative is sit tight for a few more weeks yet, and see if you can pick up a pre-owned d7000 as they undoubtedly will be sold to fund the new d7100.
That and an 18-105 lens, if you want just one lens to cover a wide range.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth my first DSLR was a D3100 and now I have moved up to a D3. And if I'm honest the images I captured with my D3100, whilst I was still getting to grips with the technology still stand up to shots I'm getting now a couple of years down the line with more expensive equipment.

I used the D3100 with the 18-55 kits lens but I also got some awesome shots that are still in my portfolio using a Tamron (non vibration correction) 70-300.

In short I'd say it very much depends on what you're shooting but don't necessarily think that going down the cheaper option will affect the standard of your work. If anything if you learn to get great shots with slightly older/less advanced equipment it'll stand you in good stead later on.

In answer to your points:

1. The sensor (14mp vs 24 mp).....
unless you're really looking to get big prints of your shots or crop right in it shouldn't make any difference (I never really noticed a shortfall with my D3100)
2. Much higher higher resolution screen.....
I never noticed the difference, to be honest I still don't with my D3- it's only when I get it on my PC do I get to have a good look at it (could be my eyesight)
3. The 3100 is a bit smaller, and so I don't like the feel of it as much-
yes it does feel smaller, but size isn't everything and you could always get an extra battery grip for the D3100 to make it feel a bit more robust (I did).


that extra £100 could go towards a better lens or even an extra lens
 
PJ S said:
As you've seemingly discounted the Pentax K30 as an option, and you're still concerned about MP, then wouldn't the logical conclusion be the 5100 twin lens kit on Amazon?
Similar £550 spend as the K30 combo, only without the weatherproofing and poorer noise.
So if it can only be a Nikon, for me, there's your dilemma solved.

Forget about 18-200 it'll be more compromised than the 55-200.

The outside alternative is sit tight for a few more weeks yet, and see if you can pick up a pre-owned d7000 as they undoubtedly will be sold to fund the new d7100.
That and an 18-105 lens, if you want just one lens to cover a wide range.
Click to expand...

Thank you, the 5100 is a top notch suggestion and would fit the bill perfectly- and what a great price! The only reason it's not on my list is my confusion over lenses.

What would I get with a 55-200 that I wouldn't get with an 18-200? Sorry for the novice question but even after 150,000 hours of research I'm still not sure. I want a lens that's:

A) versatile (wide angle, enough zoom for most situations)
B) able to produce bright, sharp images that are at least good enough to sell to a magazine, together with my articles.

I'm not a professional photographer, neither do I intend to be, and I don't have £500 to spend on a lens, so I'm not expecting perfection. But of course I want to get as close as I can within my budget (£500-550, body and first lens).

Some have suggested Nikon over Sigma or Tameron. How much will I notice the difference? Do you think I can justify the outlay at this early stage?

Thank you again.

Ben
 
gad-westy said:
All of these lenses though are jack of all trades which means there is usually a trade off. Great if you want the portability and convenience of one lens fits all as long as you're happy with the trade off. I can see no reason why a magazine would turn down an image from these, there are very few lenses incapable of producing a good clean image in the right hands but some make it easier than others.
Click to expand...

Gad-westy, thank you so much for your long and detailed response. Very helpful.

I accept what you say about the trade-off with a budget 18-200 lens. But do you think the Sigma 18-200 would be good enough for my needs? As I've said thought this post, all I really want is something that's versatile and will give me good enough results to sell the images to decent magazines. I'm not interested in under the microscope niggles, as I'm only just starting out.

Anyone else have any 18-200 lens stories to tell, good or bad? The larger zoom models seem good but they are over budget.

Many thanks.

Ben
 
Just a quick one to say THANK YOU to everyone who has taken the time to respond so far. I now feel that I'm nearly there. Can't wait to get this done so I can finally move on with my life! ...my research is getting ridiculous!
 
D3100 owner for 2 years, have had Nikon 35mm, 18-55, 18-70, 55-200 and 18-200 lenses. (amongst others)

A few examples........ (i'm not pretending they are good or that I can take a decent pic, so might be relevant!) :)

55-200


DSC_4376.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr

18-70


DSC_1687.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr

35mm 1.8


DSC_0560.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr

18-200


DSC_1050.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr

Can't seem to find any 18-55 to post at the mo. :thinking:

But I do love my 18-200. Granted, its not 'pixel perfect' as people have said, but its totally convenient. You never miss a shot with that on. I'm not really a fan of having 2 lens to cover the range as I kept missing shots I wanted. But everyone is different. Maybe a 18-55 & 55-200 combo might suit you better? It would certainly be cheaper than getting a Nikon 18-200.

I read every review out there when choosing my 18-200 and the Tamron/Sigma variants always came bottom of the pile. Granted, the Nikon is more expensive, but you get what you pay for I suppose.

You said you wanted "bright and sharp images", I don't think you'll have any worries with the D3100 or anything later; d3200, d5100 etc.

Not sure on your skill level? But as a starter kit you can't go wrong. I'd also suggest not going crazy on lenses and spending a fortune. Get used to the camera and then when you find where you want to go with your photography, improve your lenses as such.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry about having every base covered right away, just because you do not know what you are going to shoot. Just start with a d3200/d5100 and the kit lens and see where you go from there. For most photographers the kit lens focal range is the most used that's why they are bundled with them. After 5yrs of photography i still don't own a tele photo lens. I had the sigma 18-200 os for a day and returned it because it was crap.
 
Last edited:
BertieTBE said:
1. The sensor (14mp vs 24 mp)
2. Much higher higher resolution screen
3. The 3100 is a bit smaller, and so I don't like the feel of it as much.
Click to expand...

Ben, IIRC, magazines like files to be at a resolution of 300dpi, so if they're going to be full (single side) A4 pages, you'll be wanting an output resolution of 3508 pixels x 2480 pixels which equates to 8.7 MP. Based on that, even the lower resolution sensor should be plenty.

While it can be nice to have a big, high resolution review screen, it's not going to be a final viewing solution, so as long as the screen is big enough to gauge sharpness and composition, it's big enough!

The feel and handling of a camera is very important, especially for a first SLR. When I returned to serious photography 15 or so years ago, it was the feel and handling that got me into the Nikon camp. I did a lot of research into what was available at my budget and took a shortlist of the models that met my desires to a dealer who stocked them all. I can't remember the opposition models but the makes I was looking at were Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta. The Nikon felt best (F65) so that's what I walked out with! I've tried alternatives whenever I've upgraded but Nikons have always fitted me best.

Happy shopping and say goodbye to most of your "disposable" income - unfortunately, photography isn't a cheap hobby to persue seriously!!!
 
I had a D3100 and it was great, if you can find a used one really cheap I would have that no probs with the kit 18-55 its perfectly fine for starting out, its more about getting the technical basics than the kit at the beginning, if you also want a zoom then the 55-200 for peanuts and you will also squeeze in a cheap 35mm 1.8 if you suck your tummy in.

also get the book mastering the D3100 "From snapshots to great shots" as i did.

All the lens above can be used an any other DX Nikon like the D7000 I would stick with that .
 
Last edited:
Before switching to M43 stuff I used to own Nikon stuff, worked my way from a D50, to a D80 and then a D90.
During that time I also worked my way through a bunch of lenses - both Nikon and Sigma. I could not initially justify the cost of the 18-200mm for a single lens, so did own the 18-55mm and 55-200m combo. Was never happy with having to swap them around so much, nor was I happy with the IQ of the Sigma 18-200m. In the end I bit the bullet and bought the Nikon 18-200mm. Liked it so much for all its all round performance that I sold the other lenses and settled on just 2 lenses, the 50mm and the Nikon 18-200mm.
I just wish I had gone straight for the 18-200mm as I must have wasted so much money on buying and then selling the other lenses at a loss.

Forgot to mention that some of the lenses were 2nd hand - never had any issues with them, so you should consider 2nd hand - if you buy carefully.
Or you could consider doing an import - Nikon lenses come with a worldwide warranty...
 
Last edited:
munkee said:
I'm not sure I follow you. Is that the new price? I'm talking about the used price of a v1 in good condition.
Click to expand...
:lol: sorry the 18-200 in your message is hyper linked to john lewis, with a £584 price tag.
 
Last edited:
Ah! The joys of Skimwords...
 
An issue with the Nikon 18-200 VR zoom and similar is they are relatively big and heavy. They don't hang very well on the smaller bodies like the 3100 and 3200. The smaller 55-200 VR coupled with the 18-55 VR is an alternative compromise that balances the smaller bodies very well. The quality is better than one would expect for such cheap lenses too. SAnd I doubt if you would see any difference with the 18-200 VR unless you are into pixel peeping. I've got both lenses; the 18-200 is coupled with a D90 with the battery pack on and it balances it well. I use 55-200 VR on a D40x. There ain't much difference in quality really.

3100 or 3200? I've heard that the 3200 is the better camera by far, so probably worth the extra.
 
Last edited:
PDM said:
An issue with the Nikon 18-200 VR zoom and similar is they are relatively big and heavy. They don't hang very well on the smaller bodies like the 3100 and 3200.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, there is nothing wrong with a Nikon 18-200 on my D3100.

If the OP is worried, probably best he heads into a local store and asks to try out the combo.
 
I'm sorry I tend to agree with pdm. The 18-200 is heavier than the d3100 and does effect the balance. However if you are convinced you want a superzoom I wouldn't buy any other.
 
rjbell said:
I'm sorry I tend to agree with pdm. The 18-200 is heavier than the d3100 and does effect the balance. However if you are convinced you want a superzoom I wouldn't buy any other.
Click to expand...

Nope, still not having it Rob. :D

Just put my 18-200 on my D3100 and not a problem at all. In fact, i'd say its more comfortable to hold than the Tamron 17-50 as there is more lens to grab hold of.

D3100 : 500g
17-50 : 460g
18-200 : 580g

We're hardly talking 70-200 lopsided are we? At nearly 1.3kg :lol:
 
The 18-200mm is also better built than either the 18-55mm or the 55-200mm. Those plastic mounts don't lend themselves to frequent lens swapping.
 
I think the thing is the OP has a budget of £500.

the Camera and an 18-200 is not going to fit.

what about an 18-105 lens and the body to start?

then a 55-200 used?
 
Mr Bump said:
I think the thing is the OP has a budget of £500.

the Camera and an 18-200 is not going to fit.
Click to expand...

With a little effort I reckon he could pick up a used D3200 body and an 18-200mm lens within his £500 budget.
 
munkee said:
With a little effort I reckon he could pick up a used D3200 body and an 18-200mm lens within his £500 budget.
Click to expand...

At the very least a d3100 and Nikon 18-200 mk.1
 
Mr Bump said:
its a big ask squeezing those two in to £500.
Gumtree might be an option I sometimes see stuff in West Yorkshire come up at good prices.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a big ask.

You'd get a D3100 for £200 and an 18-200 for £300 i'm sure.

Classifieds on here is your best bet, but you need enough qualifying posts to gain access.

Both items above have sold for those prices recently.
 
Thank you all for your thoughts. Once again, you have been so helpful!

I've taken into account everything that everyone has said and I've decided to go for the 3100, simply because it's cheaper, freeing up some funds for better lenses, extras later, and because based on what many have said, it'll probably do the job just as well.

I'm going to take your advice and pay the extra for a Nikon lens...but which?

As a new Nikon 18-200 is way over budget, I'm warming to the idea of a used one. Found one on Gumtree for 275 or London Camera Exchange for 300. Ideally, I'd like the body to be new.

OR:

3100 combo (18-55 and 55-200) for just over £500. Would I get almost the same thing as the 18-200, for less money? I'm still getting to grips with what each range can do, so not sure on this. What about wide angle? Low-light performance? Would sharpness and colour be as good? Would it be as good across the zoom range? Or better?

From what I understand, the upside of the 18-55 is that it's lighter and cheaper. On the downside, you may be changing lenses and missing shots. Is there anything else?

Any thoughts?

Thank you all so much again. I have learnt so much and really appreciate your help.

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