What Lens ?

vince31

vince31

Messages
4,872
Name
Vince
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently using a Nikon D3000 with a 55-200mm lens.

I take a lot of shots of running dogs and also birds and was thinking of getting a better lens

Any suggestions please?

Regards
 
That's the same setup as me, but I do running kids :)
What is your current kit not doing that you want out of your photos?
You want a faster lens? A longer lens? Longer AND faster will cost serious cash. How much budget?
I'm not an expert myself, but to be honest it's amazing what you can squeeze out of your current kit? (my 55-200 is non VR)
 
Depends how much you want to spend and what you are prepared to carry around.
Do you feel that the reach of your current lens is lacking?
If you Don't need more reach are you after better quality glass?
It's just that "better lens" can mean many things.Giving a little more info should help.
 
Lol just read your post after I entered mine Craig, SNAP!
 
Last edited:
:lol:
I'll just add a few things if you dont mind (I'm assuming you are new, no offence either):cool: I'm new myself and like most things you'll get people who 'need' the latest and greatest. It's the nature of forums particularly IMO.

Things like the size and weight should be considered....I'd 'like' a 70-200 2.8, but for the cost, the weight, the attention (seriously).....will it produce better pics than my 55-200? Yes, but only sometimes - side by side no doubt, but would the size of it terrify the kids, resulting in less natural pics? Would I even take it out on average day, would I worry about dropping it/getting it stolen? (ok, there is insurance, I know) That sort of thing.... it's just one 'part' of getting a photo you are happy with (an important one though).
What about composition, understanding light (natural as well as flash etc) a bit better? Tripod work? It's a huge subject. IMO you'll get more out of that for the next while than forking out a 4 figure sum out and getting 'sometimes' better pics?:shrug:
I'm still new myself and soemtimes surprised at the stuff I can get from my bog standard d3000 and £100 55-200.
I know you are going to come back now and say you have 30 years experience and 10k to spend:lol: Just my thoughts anyway:thumbs: I think i'm just saying it's easy to spend a fortune in this game without any guarantees of quality returned.
 
What he said every time, and saved me a shed load of typing as well. :thumbs:
 
Bloody hell you should be a fortune teller SnappyHappy lol !!

I'm new to the game indeed and i'm struggling in getting shots of the Birds and Dogs whilst out in the field , don't get me wrong I do get some great shots with what I have but I miss quite alot of action shots etc and just not enough distance with the current lens set up etc
Maybe I need to run faster to keep up with the subject lol !!
 
Lol
Well if its just reach maybe just head for a nikkor 55-300 - must only be a couple of hundred? Not exactly fast though (be the ~same as your 200) but seems ok reviews from what I remember. Fine for a 'fair' day and messing around??
Must admit i am half tempted myself to swap the 200 for the 300 (my 200 is non vr). Just for reach - use my 35 1.8 for low light - 200 for the park and 35 for the house. Wouldnt be surprised if the 300 was a bit soft beyond ~250 (?) - i'm sure others will comment :)
Look at 3rd party though and i've bought stuff 2nd hand - mind you at a couple of hundred probably be as well just buying new? Hmmm ;)
Let me know if you do get it? :) tempting - seems good for the price?
 
Yeah 215 on amazon. I'm thinking the 200 can be a bit soft near its limits (like most) but even if the 300 gave me a good say 250...could probably sell the 200 and just add 100-150 towards the 300 - plus i get vr...hmmm
I got the 200 when i never knew much about this stuff - it was about a fiver less than the vr!!! Lol doh!
 
Well I recently bought a 55-300 from the classified section for £155 so shop around. I must say I am quite impressed with the images it has yielded so far on my D200. Not up to my canon 70-200L but nor would I expect It to be. Image quality is pretty good right up to 300 and is better than I would have expected on a lens from this price range. The big downside is that the AF is very slow. I have found every Nikon lens I've tried to be a fair bit slower than it's canon counterpart (my 55-250 is rapid by comparison) but this one is particularly sluggish even compared to your 55-200 which could be an issue if shooting fast moving doggies. Other than that it's a lovely lens for the money.
 
Last edited:
...there we go then :) suppose I'd need to try it first, the AF might put me off now you mentioned it, (kids pics) but sounds good for the cash though :) dunno how new you are Vince, but remember for moving objects the vr won't help.....don't want to mislead you, I just think I would have gained a bit for the few static
(ish) pics of the kids I take.
Since posting the reviews on Amazon seem pretty positive -couple of negative but 90% giving 5 stars out of 50 I think it was - like you say, for the cash - it seems good :) keep in perspective you won't go wrong.
This is typical of this forum - someone asks about a lens and i end up buying one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top