Nikon D5300, but what lens?

keogh

keogh

keogh

Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
2,756
Location
Bangkok, Thailand (formally London)
Hi Guys,

I'm looking to buy a decent SLR, and after owning Nikon's for years and checking out reviews I have decided upon the Nikon D5300 as it does everything I want, so that part is sorted.

But my question is what lens do I get? I am in no way, nor will ever be a professional, and I just want the camera for taking shots of the family, travelling etc so I really just want one lens that does the lot (2 max). SO I want a kit lens and not a bunch of primes cos that would just not be cost efficient for my needs.

I'm going towards getting the body only then grabbing the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR so I can get great zoom levels all in one lens, but would I be compromised at low zooms too much with this lens? Would I be best to go with the 18-140 lens instead? Or does having a higher end zoom not affect lower zooms at all?

Money isn't the issue here, so the fact the 300 costs more doesn't matter, it's just what would be the best lens for multi purpose (non-pro) level photos?

As mentioned, I'm no pro and a bit of a noob when it comes to SLR cameras, but of course I'll pick this stuff up once I start playing with the camera, so right now just want your input on what lens would be adequate for my needs?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I definitely like the idea of higher zooms, the further I can go without compromising low zooms is what I ideally want.
 
Personally I'd stick to the 18-55 VR lens you get with the camera and then get either a 55-200 or a 70-300 IF you need the extra range. Its so easy to just go wild and buy everything without actually using the tools to begin with. I use to own the 18-200 lens and that was a good performer, although its results at 200mm compared to a 70-200 aren't anything to write home about. If you want to do portraits of the family, you want a fast aperture lens more than an all in one travel thing anyway. Highly recommend the AF-S 35mm F1.8G lens on that body as the aperture will blur the backgrounds nicely, give you the option of shooting in very low light conditions at respectable ISO levels without using flash etc.
 
I think I might go for the 18-200 on its own, and this will be a good all rounder for a while. Then I might look at better primes in future, or multiple zooms once I've had the camera for a bit. Cos this will be my first SLR, so I reckon the 18-200 would be a good starting point?
 
It has pretty decent performance throughout the range, but you'll struggle with low light photography with it as its max aperture is 3.5 at the wide end and 5.6 at the long end, which isn't exactly fast by any means. Thats why I'd recommend getting the 35mm F1.8G to compliment such a lens for those occasions when your lighting requires you to use a faster aperture, or face ISO thats way too high for the body to cope with effectively, giving you rubbish, detail lacking shots.
 
Theres also 2 versions of the 18-200 but both are optically identical, the difference is theres a locking mechanism on the V2 one that stops "zoom creep", however, I owned the V1 and never experienced it, so buy second hand and get a V1 and use the cash you saved from buying new to get a 35mm :P
 
Thanks James, I like the sound of going for the 18-200 and adding the AF-S 35mm F1.8G prime for the occasions that demand it.
 
Yeah was looking at that actually, you can get the D5300 with the 18-55 or the 18-140. So I will consider that as well, as thinking now I don;t need amazing zooms tbh.
 
macuser said:
I've been looking at both these lenses for my new D7100, went with the 18-140 in the end.
Click to expand...

How you getting on with it? Do you feel it would cover most bases for a general user (e.g nothing professional)?
 
The 18-200 was a fine line on the 6Mp sensors it was designed for, it was OK on 12Mp if you were willing to sacrifice a little. But it doesn't stand up on today 24Mp sensors very well at all. 18-140mm is definitely sharper, the 16-85 is sharper again. PNW of the big downsides of the super zooms like 18-200mm is the distortion and high variability in output. So etimes zooming in or about a little helps a lot but it is hard to remember what lengths are good and and what are not. Also the lengths are often over stated, the lens won't really be close to 18mm wide and nowhere near 200mm at normal focus (more like 170mm and less when closer). The aperture is also some what less than f/5.6 at the tele end.
 
keogh said:
How you getting on with it? Do you feel it would cover most bases for a general user (e.g nothing professional)?
Click to expand...

I got the lens on Saturday, just in the process of selling my D5100 then I'll be buying a D7100 so not had chance to play with it yet.
 
D.P. said:
The 18-200 was a fine line on the 6Mp sensors it was designed for, it was OK on 12Mp if you were willing to sacrifice a little. But it doesn't stand up on today 24Mp sensors very well at all. 18-140mm is definitely sharper, the 16-85 is sharper again. PNW of the big downsides of the super zooms like 18-200mm is the distortion and high variability in output. So etimes zooming in or about a little helps a lot but it is hard to remember what lengths are good and and what are not. Also the lengths are often over stated, the lens won't really be close to 18mm wide and nowhere near 200mm at normal focus (more like 170mm and less when closer). The aperture is also some what less than f/5.6 at the tele end.
Click to expand...

Ok sounds like I want to give the 18-200 a miss then, I know that's been around for a few years now.

At the moment I'm planning on going with the 18-140 for now.
 
Good choice, also the newer model of the 18-140 was released only in August 2013 so is better suited to the new higher range of Mp camera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom