Next Logical Lens (Nikon DX)

richardirv · 30 Dec 2012 at 13:15

I am just looking for some advice on what lens I should be looking at next.

I currently have the Nikon D5100 with the following lenses.

18-55 VR
55-200 VR
35mm F1.8

I received a 55-300 VR for Christmas which I can't test as it has some dust inside the lens so its going back and the only choice was a refund.

I am in 2 minds at the moment, get another 55-300 (great to have the extra reach + metal lens mount) then sell the 55-200.

Or Is there a better lens option that I am missing? I was thinking of selling the 18-55 & 55-200 for a 18-200 or 300 but I have heard these are technically not as good as the separate lenses due to the flexibility of the lens.

I really would like not to have to change lenses all the time but its also not the end of the world.

I was thinking about the 70-300 as its supposed to be a faster lens.

Budget is hard to work out really, must factor in the cost of selling other lenses + the initial cost of the 55-300.

Hope this makes sense.

Cheers

Columbo · 30 Dec 2012 at 13:24

Sell your 18-55mm & 55-200mm and buy a used 18-200mm?

Otherwise what are you finding limiting with the lenses you currently have?

richardirv · 30 Dec 2012 at 13:32

ManCuBuS said:
Sell your 18-55mm & 55-200mm and buy a used 18-200mm?

Otherwise what are you finding limiting with the lenses you currently have?

I'm not really finding anything limiting apart from having to change lenses to be honest 90% of the time my 35mm is on the body.

Its just the fact I have been given the 55-300 as a gift so I need to decide if I should just get another after the refund and sell the 200. Or see if there is a better option?

I hear lots of people moan about the 18-200 in regards to distortion compared to the 2 separate lenses. Though I assume that can be corrected in Lightroom.

Amp34 · 30 Dec 2012 at 13:43

Sell the 55-200 and use that and the refund to get a 70-300 VR.

The 18-200 makes an ok do it all lens for lightweight trips etc but it depends how much you value image quality over convenience.

Columbo · 30 Dec 2012 at 13:58

richardirv said:
I'm not really finding anything limiting apart from having to change lenses to be honest 90% of the time my 35mm is on the body.

Its just the fact I have been given the 55-300 as a gift so I need to decide if I should just get another after the refund and sell the 200. Or see if there is a better option?

I hear lots of people moan about the 18-200 in regards to distortion compared to the 2 separate lenses. Though I assume that can be corrected in Lightroom.

Honestly put, distortion is something I totally ignore when choosing a lens. Its simply not something I care about. In a lot of situations it is just not noticeable and it can be corrected very easily if needed.

If you are not finding anything particularly limiting can I ask why you are looking to invest?

You've already mentioned you don't like the hassle of changing lenses which is why I suggested the 18-200VR, but past that is there any other reason?

And having owned and used both, its very hard to tell the difference between the 70-300VR and 18-200VR unless you are viewing your images highly magnified.

Get them both at f8 and there's nothing in it apart from differences in length. If you are viewing you shots on a PC screen or Flickr etc you'll never notice.

richardirv · 30 Dec 2012 at 14:11

I am still learning so I tend to believe what I read from respectable sources. As I said before I am only looking around as I have had a lens given that overlaps a lens that I already own. I kind of want to have the extra reach of the 300 rather than the 200 but the 18-300 VR is a little bit out of my price range at the moment. I am kind of leaning towards Amp34's suggestion which was what I was thinking of to begin with. Although that 18-200 is very tempting for flexibility.

James J · 30 Dec 2012 at 14:20

Curveball = 105mm F2.8 macro VR

Its a good telephoto lens and one of the sharpest lenses nikon has ever made, plus is a dedicated macro lens (so 1:1) which is something you can't do with that kit to anywhere near the same standard.

Columbo · 30 Dec 2012 at 14:22

richardirv said:
I am still learning so I tend to believe what I read from respectable sources. As I said before I am only looking around as I have had a lens given that overlaps a lens that I already own. I kind of want to have the extra reach of the 300 rather than the 200 but the 18-300 VR is a little bit out of my price range at the moment. I am kind of leaning towards Amp34's suggestion which was what I was thinking of to begin with. Although that 18-200 is very tempting for flexibility.

Reach is certainly handy and if you are wanting it for wildlife etc then the 70-300VR is where I would be looking.

Just make sure you buy what actually want and don't make the mistake buying for the sake of it and end up regretting it a few weeks later.

richardirv · 30 Dec 2012 at 14:25

James J said:
Curveball = 105mm F2.8 macro VR

Its a good telephoto lens and one of the sharpest lenses nikon has ever made, plus is a dedicated macro lens (so 1:1) which is something you can't do with that kit to anywhere near the same standard.

Certainly on for the future i think but again the price is a bit much for me to justify at the moment.

richardirv · 30 Dec 2012 at 14:29

ManCuBuS said:
Reach is certainly handy and if you are wanting it for wildlife etc then the 70-300VR is where I would be looking.

Just make sure you buy what actually want and don't make the mistake buying for the sake of it and end up regretting it a few weeks later.

I will bud, I'm trying not to rush into anything that's I posted here, always good to get some other views.

I was lucky enough to spot the Avro Vulcan XH558 a few months ago while camping, I was lucky that I had the 55-200 on but I would love to have had a 300 back then just to get the big closer.

Amp34 · 30 Dec 2012 at 14:31

ManCuBuS said:
Reach is certainly handy and if you are wanting it for wildlife etc then the 70-300VR is where I would be looking.

Just make sure you buy what actually want and don't make the mistake buying for the sake of it and end up regretting it a few weeks later.

Or buy used, then just sell it again if you don't like it, all for postage costs.

Energize · 30 Dec 2012 at 18:32

I would also recommend the 70-300 and selling the other telephoto.

ManCuBuS said:
Get them both at f8 and there's nothing in it apart from differences in length. If you are viewing you shots on a PC screen or Flickr etc you'll never notice.

It's rare that I have the opportunity to use such a narrow aperture outside of a studio, I don't understand why some people focus on image quality at a narrow f8 when many people can seldom use it and more often shoot wide open.

Columbo · 30 Dec 2012 at 19:22

Energize said:
I would also recommend the 70-300 and selling the other telephoto.

It's rare that I have the opportunity to use such a narrow aperture outside of a studio, I don't understand why some people focus on image quality at a narrow f8 when many people can seldom use it and more often shoot wide open.

I'm not sure I understand.

As an example, for landscapes getting the lens to its sharpest point (i.e corner to corner) is often more critical than allowing more light in. This is often around f8 on a lot of lenses but varies wildly from lens to lens.

For example the 70-300VR we've all mentioned is really quite soft at 300mm / f5.6. That changes totally at f8 so why wouldn't you use it if the light allows?

Auraomega · 30 Dec 2012 at 20:46

Horses for courses. One thing I have noticed (and I too was a victim for a long time) is that people will shoot wide open because they can, not because the situation calls for it. I got out of that when I started using fast primes and got all 2.8 lenses as the depth was too shallow and caused some photos to be soft where they shouldn't be.

Honestly richardirv I'd seriously consider what James J has suggested, my 105 macro and 85 1.8 are my 2 most used lenses because they open up many creative possibilities. I bagged my 105 second hand for a very good price (admittedly because I work in a camera shop but hey ho), but I've seen the non vr model go used for the £250 mark regularly, and at that price it's an absolute steal considering the quality of glass.

Here's a 1:1 shot of a fern's roots here (while not massively inventive, you can't argue with the quality and it's allows you to take photos you otherwise wouldn't see), and another of a watch here which while isn't a 1:1, shows just how sharp and punchy the lens is.

You'll find in terms of quality that the 105 trumps anything you've got, or likely to ever get at the same money.

Shoei · 30 Dec 2012 at 21:45

what about the 35mm f/1.8?
Great fun shooting with primes.
85mm f/1.8 next, when I have some spare cash.

Auraomega · 30 Dec 2012 at 22:03

richardirv said:
I currently have the Nikon D5100 with the following lenses.

18-55 VR
55-200 VR
35mm F1.8

Shoei said:
what about the 35mm f/1.8?

85mm is a great lens, but completely the wrong field of view on a DX body in my opinion.

Energize · 31 Dec 2012 at 00:20

ManCuBuS said:
For example the 70-300VR we've all mentioned is really quite soft at 300mm / f5.6. That changes totally at f8 so why wouldn't you use it if the light allows?

You would, but it often doesn't in reality, that's what I'm saying. I don't think I've ever been able to take a shot at f/8 in my usual shooting conditions.

Shoei · 31 Dec 2012 at 08:25

Teach me not to read start threads properly!!
What about a 2nd hand Siggy 70-200mm f/2.8?

richardirv · 31 Dec 2012 at 10:59

How do the Sigma's compare to the Nikon, They do seem much cheaper. I have been trying to stick to Nikon to guarantee I am getting the best glass for the camera plus with the camera not having a focus motor I know were I stand with the Nikon AF-S lenses, is it just the same with the Sigma's etc?

Shoei · 31 Dec 2012 at 11:12

richardirv said:
How do the Sigma's compare to the Nikon, They do seem much cheaper. I have been trying to stick to Nikon to guarantee I am getting the best glass for the camera plus with the camera not having a focus motor I know were I stand with the Nikon AF-S lenses, is it just the same with the Sigma's etc?

The Sigma 70-200 is HSM, so the motor is built into the lens. As for quality, i couldnt fault the one i had.
This was taken with the Siggy 70-200.

Charlie by spg_mutts, on Flickr

Well worth the money. Need to save up & get myself another one or save some more & get the Nikon 24-120 f/4