Lens line up

P

Paulie

Messages
31
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I've currently got a D3100 with 18-55mm kit lens, I'm now thinking of adding some new hardware to my kit.

At the moment I'm just shooting portraits of family and pets, and just general stuff, but I want to have a bash at some motorsport and landscape, would these lenses be a wise choice to the line up;

Nikon 35mm AF-S 1.8
Nikon 55-300mm AF-S 4-5.6

Or are there better options available around the same budget?
 
Do you mean the Nikon 55-200? Nikon don't make a 55-300 iirc

Just to be clear, are you looking to get the 35mm AND the 55-200, at the same time? Or one or the other?

If at the same time, I'd suggest not getting either, and getting the Nikon 70-300. An excellent lens for the money. The kit lens is wide enough to get you some nice landscapes, and you are unlikely to miss the 55-70mm gap.

If one or the other... I'd suggest not getting the 35mm, and perhaps saving for a little longer and getting the 50mm F/1.4 AF-S. This will be superior on your body for portraits over the 35mm. That said, it wont help you for motorsport. In which case, I will fall back on my statement above if motorsport is what you really want to do. 18-55 will suffice for landscapes, and the 70-300 will be the best of the lot for motorsports.

If you want to do portraiture as well, my advice still sides with the 50mm over the 35mm. Just means a bit of saving!
 
Last edited:
The 70 to 300 is supposed to better than the 55-300.

I've got the 55-300 and love it (only had it 2 weeks)

I've also got the 35mm lens and its great.

Both lenses are great additions
 
Blimey, didn't see the 55-300 on the nikon site, must have missed it.

the difference between the 35 and 50mm won't be IQ wise, it'll be more that 50mm on crop is potentially a nicer length than 35mm for portraiture. Also, you get 2/3rd stop extra light.

Having tested the 70-300 extensively, I can vouch for it's quality. Never used the 55-300 however.

Good old Ken says the following:

"It's better than the smaller and lighter 55-200mm VR, with which this 55-300mm VR has much in common. The 70-300mm VR is a much bigger, better and not that much more expensive FX lens." I'm inclined to believe him here.

He further states that the 70-300 is superior for motorsport.

Up to you :)
 
I agree with Woodsy and Uncle Ken, go for the 70-300mm with VR it is a better lens all round than the 55-300mm. As to the portrait lens have you thought about the 85mm 1.4? Stellar quality but a little bit pricey. If you don't mind 2nd hand and manual focus both the 35mm and 50mm E series Nikons are available for not very much so you try them out and see which you preferred and sell on the one you don't want.

Andy
 
The d3100 doesn't have a focus motor, so only the af-s are the only ones that autofocus

Sent from my HTC Desire using TP Forums
 
Dale_d3100 said:
The d3100 doesn't have a focus motor, so only the af-s are the only ones that autofocus

Sent from my HTC Desire using TP Forums
Click to expand...

Correct, but for portraits and landscapes autofocus is not an issue, you can take as long as you like focussing (within reason) and its not a bad thing to be able to do, opens up a whole world of cheaper, razor-sharp lenses.

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