New toys.. but which ones!

Donk1166

Donk1166

Messages
111
Edit My Images
No
This photography bug has bitten BIG time!!
Having purchased my D5100 with 18-55 kit lens I'm now after a new lens to expand my kit.
I asked about macro stuff on here & I've decided to go for a cheap option so I can a nice zoom.
Budget is about £200 (maybe £250 if I don't tell me wife!!). I'm looking at either 55-200 or 55-300 Nikon (or bargain substitute).

Because I'm new to this I'm not sure if I'd notice the difference between the 200 & 300. It would be used for general shooting, nothing fancy.

Also the Tamron 70-300 seems ridiculous value. Does anyone know if it's any good?
 
I see you post didn't get answer.

I don't use anything behind a 250mm so i can't give you the right answer you was looking for, or i can say is if you are into wildlife then you need a bigger zoom lens but just for general shoots like me i have a 18-135mm i find this nice for my photos or try a 15-85mm or 24-105mm

i hope this helps
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you need to be a bit more specific than 'general shooting'. When you look to splash some of your hard earned on a new lens, there needs to be a reason for it.

You can get a very good used macro lens within your budget if thats what floats your boat but it may be a bit limited for general shooting.

Give us the specifics and you'll probably get a few good suggestions

Mike
 
Hi

Use the lens you have for now and save up. If you want a zoom go for the 70 - 300. The 55-200 vr is not a bad lens. But some times we buy more than we need and don't make good use if it.
 
I suppose 'general shooting' is vague!

It'd probably be easier to list the stuff I wouldn't be using it for.. portraits, wildlife & sports are at the bottom of the list. Scenery stuff (urban & countryside) & a bit of macro.
The macro side of things are a bit more expensive so I'm going to experiment with some magnifying lenses before I commit that kind of dosh.

I feel I need more zoom than my 18-55 gives me. I was more curious as to whether or not I would notice (in real use) the extra zoom a 300mm provides over a 200mm.

I also appreciate the advice to save up. The funds are there, I'm just not sure (as an amateur) I can ever justify spending more than £300 on a single lens. Hence the bargain approach.
 
OK, I'm a little confused now!

Generally speaking, you want over 200mm for wildlife and sports, neither of which you want to shoot.

Scenery wise (landscapes?) you tend to want a wider lens, not a longer one, apart from certain techniques.

You dont have to go mad pricewise for macro, a Tamron 90mm can be got well within your budget, but if I'm being brutally honest, I'd recommend a bit more thought and research before lightening your wallet.

Mike
 
That's the advice I need. If that's the case then I can ignore the 55-300mm.

Having looked into this (a lot!) & have narrowed it down to 2 options -
55-200mm & keep the 18-55mm kit lens, that should cover most options.
Or
Trade in my 18-55mm & get a 18-105mm to use as my main lens. Then save up if I want to go for a macro.

So to the professional eye which gets the best results Nikon 55-200 or the Nikon 18-105?
 
If you are after a bit more length and you mentioned the Tamron 70-300 SP Di then answer to your question, yes it's a very good lens for the price, I had one and was very pleased with it
 
Does the lack of vibration control make much difference? The bargain model doesn't have it
 
Donk1166 said:
Does the lack of vibration control make much difference? The bargain model doesn't have it
Click to expand...

You need too go for the SP DI VC model which can be had for under £300 now
 
That's what I thought, it's a bit outside my budget of £200!

I'm starting to think I might have to save up & aim for the £300 mark or I might waste my money. Nobody told me this photography lark would be so addictive!!

Better check my lottery numbers I guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top