Lens Recommendations for Beginner (First time posting)

Super Simple

Super Simple

Messages
76
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello All,

I'm a complete beginner but I'm finding limitations in my one lens, a Nikkor AF-S 18~105 mm. (Or limitations in my abilities.) I have a Nikon D5000.

I'd like to get a larger zoom (telephoto) lens, but don't want to spend a huge amount. (I'm just starting after all.)

So I'm looking into Sigma lenses, but open to anything.

I'd like to spend under $500.

I've found that used lenses on the local ebay (.com.au) go for too close to the retail price, so I'm not interested in used lenses unless I actually get them at a reasonable price. (Less than 50% retail because it's a gamble -- am I being unrealistic?)

Anyways, would anyone care to give me any broad recommendations for what I should look at? I'm a beginner, so I'd like to aim in that range. I can buy more expensive lenses later once I improve my photography skills.

Thanks in advance for any advice!
 
Looking at these:

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G

They dont' look very different, but the one has VR on it.

Are they really that much different? $200 vs. $600?

Sorry if I sound like an idiot...
 
Yes they are I have a 50-150 Sigma as my telephoto - although that probably does not give you much more reach than your 18-105, it is a very good lens with very fast AF and good image quality. Second hand it probably is within your budget as well. Second hand Sigma 70-200 will probably be outside your budget but not by much and it is a very good lens.

If you want a 70-300 there is no much point checking anything else other than the Nikkor though for your budget.
 
Sorry just saw your other post:

Don't even think about the NON AF-S. It is a universally thought of mediocre lens, it has no VR and you will need it at focal lengths of 100+ and if I am not mistaken it will not AF on your camera but I am probably wrong on that!
 
vrapan said:
Sorry just saw your other post:

Don't even think about the NON AF-S. It is a universally thought of mediocre lens, it has no VR and you will need it at focal lengths of 100+ and if I am not mistaken it will not AF on your camera but I am probably wrong on that!
Click to expand...

I believe that you're right about the non-AF. I recall reading something somewhere about that lens (I believe) not being able to autofocus on some cameras, including the D5000. But being new, I could be confused.

And thank-you for that advice. :) I'll make sure to stick with something with VR and AF.
 
Super Simple said:
AF Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4-5.6G
Click to expand...

This lens won't auto-focus on your D5000 and, in all honesty, is not as good as the AF-S VR version anyway - the extra cost is well deserved :)

I've had the Sigma 70-300 before and soon traded it for the Nikon AF-S VR version.
 
I have the 55-200 VR it's a great lens for the price, it may be a bit short for you though. I'd definitely get a lens with VR if you intend to hand hold while shooting.
 
Bristolian said:
I've had the Sigma 70-300 before and soon traded it for the Nikon AF-S VR version.
Click to expand...

I did the same. I had the Sigma 70-300mm lens but found it wanting when I went from D70 (6MP) to D200 (10MP). The extra resolution showed up the limitations of the lens for me. :( I had the APO version of Sigma btw, which is the better version to get.

I found the Nikon 70-300mm VR a big improvement on the Sigma. The Sigma was also a Macro lens though and the Nikon is not, which I found useful and missed. I made the right choice though.
 
redhed17 said:
I did the same. I had the Sigma 70-300mm lens but found it wanting when I went from D70 (6MP) to D200 (10MP). The extra resolution showed up the limitations of the lens for me. :( I had the APO version of Sigma btw, which is the better version to get.

I found the Nikon 70-300mm VR a big improvement on the Sigma. The Sigma was also a Macro lens though and the Nikon is not, which I found useful and missed. I made the right choice though.
Click to expand...

I had someone mention that the Tamron 70-300 is very good.

Does anyone know how it stacks up to the Sigma or Nikon 70-300?
 
What sort of photos do you usually shoot? if you find yourself shooting the majority of your subjects at the short end, just stick with what you have, or perhaps get a 50mm 1.8. However, if you're really into wildlife or sports, then by all means grab yourself a nice long lens! ;)
I would say that VR is definately a must, I have a non VR 80-200 2.8 and fully zoomed it does get a little less sharp at anything under 1/100

hope that helped!
 
retrogamer1990 said:
What sort of photos do you usually shoot? if you find yourself shooting the majority of your subjects at the short end, just stick with what you have, or perhaps get a 50mm 1.8. However, if you're really into wildlife or sports, then by all means grab yourself a nice long lens! ;)
I would say that VR is definately a must, I have a non VR 80-200 2.8 and fully zoomed it does get a little less sharp at anything under 1/100

hope that helped!
Click to expand...

I find that a lot of the things I'm looking to capture are simply too far away. The pictures I take are basically opportunistic, so there's no hard & fast set of subjects that I shoot. Like I mentioned above - beginner.

I found a Sigma 150-500 going for about $900. I'm willing to go higher than $500, but then it's a harder sell for myself, and I'll also have to do more homework and ask more people that are more experienced than me.

I've started checking ebay for camera sets to see if I can buy a camera with the lens I want. It seems like all the lenses sell for too high considering they are used, but I keep seeing cameras with lenses that seem to be selling cheaper. Not sure if that's just a skewed observation though.
 
I'd recommend the Nikon 70-300VR. It's a good lens for a reasonable price and will triple your range. I've got the same setup as you (D5000 and 18-105) and got the 70-300VR for those shots where I needed extra reach.

My concern with a 150-500mm lens would be how effectively you'll be able to get a sharp shot handholding that lens at the longer focal lengths - I'm assuming that if your photography is mostly opportunistic you won't have a monopod or tripod handy. A monopod might be a good investment for you.
Also bear in mind that a 150-500mm lens will be pretty heavy (almost 2kg, making it 2.5x the weight of a 70-300VR) and 150mm is too long for general use, so you'll probably need to take the 18-105 too.
The combined weight of all that kit is getting quite heavy - will you happy carrying it all? A lens left at home is no use at all! (I'm lazy and only tend to take my 70-300 when I know it will get used, the rest of time I just accept that I have to get closer or not get the shot. The 35mm lives in my bag though).

re: 2nd hand - if the Aussie market is anything like the Uk, you won't get 2nd hand kit for less than 50% of new, especially if it's a model still in production. Camera equipment holds its value pretty well and 60-80% of new value is more realistic.
To reduce the risk, either buy in person or make sure to get a detailed description of condition (including photos) and buy through a source that gives you some protection against misdescribed items.
Also consider 2nd-hand purchases from dealers - many will offer a warranty.
 
70-300 VR AF-S sounds perfect. The Sigma 150-500 might be a cracking lens but I can't help thinking that sort of range is for fairly specialist stuff like birds etc... For most people I think 300mm should be enough. I'm there would be occasions where you would like more but not enough to justify the increased costs.
 
Sorry I am probably going to waste your time but...


Have a look at the
- tamron 80-400
- sigma 50-500

Not sure what the prices are like over there, but they are both going for around 400-700 ukp used. You might find a bargain.

Alternatively, see if there are any lens hiring places near you? Then you can try all the zoomy lenses to find the one you'd like.

As a beginner I'd go for the 70-300 basic (around 100-150ukp) but its iq (picture quality) is not great. It would only be a temporary lens for you to see how close you can get. Hence the hiring of lenses. If you have a day or two spare, shouldn't cost over the top and may swing you to/from the lenses.

Have a google search near you and see whether there are any stores/places that do it. Better then spending on a lens that you will upgrade or too much on one you won't use.
 
Generally lenses keep their prices as the technology changes slowly, and they are replaced by manufacturers even more slowly, ;) and the quality keeps its price. With lenses you get what you pay for quality wise. Normally. ;)
 
The Tamron is a good lens but it is only 60-70£ less than the Nikkor.

On that account alone I'd go for the Nikon and won't even mention the fact that the Nikkor is also Full Frame compatible, has arguably better image stabilisation and can be had for a bit less than the Tamron second hand from a dealer who will guarantee it too.

As I said I doubt that for that price and for this kind of lens you will find anything better.

Just to make it clear I am not a Nikkor purist actually I own 0 nikkor lenses at present.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top