Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Which lens would be best for next purchase...telephoto, wide angle or macro?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bluenoser" data-source="post: 23346" data-attributes="member: 6351"><p>Hi there. </p><p></p><p>Well you really are describing a need for 3 lenses not 2 as I've highlighted in your post above: landscape, wildlife and macro.</p><p></p><p>#1 - <u>A Landscape lens</u>: </p><p></p><p>With landscape you'll want a nice wide angle of view that a lens like the Sigma 10-20 can provide. 10mm vs. the 18mm of your 18-55 is a big difference - although it doesn't sound like it. On a crop sensor camera like the D3000, a 10mm focal length gives a field of view equal to 15mm and an 18mm lens gives a field of view equal to 27mm. So the difference is really between 15mm and 27mm which does translate into a dramatically different looking image. Ultra wide angle lenses really can draw the viewer into the photograph and make for dramatic looking images. </p><p></p><p>#2 - <u>A Wildlife lens</u></p><p></p><p>Wildlife lenses are usually all about the longer focal lengths depending on what you are shooting (birds or bears or squirrels, etc.) The 55-200 is a good value lens providing excellent image quality but it's not really what I would consider a wildlife lens. As a previous poster indicated, the 55-300VR would be a better choice as it gets you out to 300mm (or a 450mm field of view vs. a 300mm field of view with the 55-200 - a big difference! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />) Personally I prefer the 70-300VR but I would certainly choose the 55-300 over the 55-200. </p><p></p><p>#3 - <u>A Macro lens</u></p><p></p><p>One of my favourite lenses! Lots of fun to use. I have the Nikon 60 2.8G and love to use it. However most would recommend a longer focal length lens for macro (i.e. the Nikon 105 VR) if you want to shoot insects and such as that would give you a larger working distance. A macro lens such as my 60 2.8 also makes a great portrait lens too - these lenses aren't just for macro photography. </p><p></p><p>Like everything else in life - we can't have everything all at once! (I wish!!) So it's about choices - which lens do you get first? Only you know which type of photography you would spend the most time on so choose accordingly. </p><p></p><p>I own the Sigma 10-20, the Nikon 70-300 (I sold my 55-200) and the Nikon 60 2.8 Micro lenses. I get far more use out of my 60 2.8 than I do the other 2 lenses combined. However I wouldn't give those other 2 lenses up either - you need them when you need them. My other main lens is the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and you have that range covered nicely with your 18-55 (if you get a chance to upgrade to the 18-105 from the 18-55 I would recommend that as well - but one thing at a time! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />)</p><p></p><p>Now I've given you a very brief overview as I see it for those 3 types of lenses and obviously much more is involved in the determination as to which one you end up with. </p><p></p><p>However you'll find that NAS (<u>N</u>ikon <u>A</u>cquisition <u>S</u>yndrome) is quite a virulent disease and one that never seems to go away - it just gets stronger over time.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Completely agree. I have the Sigma 10-20 and love it! 2nd hand lenses are a great way to go! You can save lots of money and still end up with great quality.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>The 55-200? Definitely sell it! A no brainer since you have the 55-300. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bluenoser, post: 23346, member: 6351"] Hi there. Well you really are describing a need for 3 lenses not 2 as I've highlighted in your post above: landscape, wildlife and macro. #1 - [U]A Landscape lens[/U]: With landscape you'll want a nice wide angle of view that a lens like the Sigma 10-20 can provide. 10mm vs. the 18mm of your 18-55 is a big difference - although it doesn't sound like it. On a crop sensor camera like the D3000, a 10mm focal length gives a field of view equal to 15mm and an 18mm lens gives a field of view equal to 27mm. So the difference is really between 15mm and 27mm which does translate into a dramatically different looking image. Ultra wide angle lenses really can draw the viewer into the photograph and make for dramatic looking images. #2 - [U]A Wildlife lens[/U] Wildlife lenses are usually all about the longer focal lengths depending on what you are shooting (birds or bears or squirrels, etc.) The 55-200 is a good value lens providing excellent image quality but it's not really what I would consider a wildlife lens. As a previous poster indicated, the 55-300VR would be a better choice as it gets you out to 300mm (or a 450mm field of view vs. a 300mm field of view with the 55-200 - a big difference! :)) Personally I prefer the 70-300VR but I would certainly choose the 55-300 over the 55-200. #3 - [U]A Macro lens[/U] One of my favourite lenses! Lots of fun to use. I have the Nikon 60 2.8G and love to use it. However most would recommend a longer focal length lens for macro (i.e. the Nikon 105 VR) if you want to shoot insects and such as that would give you a larger working distance. A macro lens such as my 60 2.8 also makes a great portrait lens too - these lenses aren't just for macro photography. Like everything else in life - we can't have everything all at once! (I wish!!) So it's about choices - which lens do you get first? Only you know which type of photography you would spend the most time on so choose accordingly. I own the Sigma 10-20, the Nikon 70-300 (I sold my 55-200) and the Nikon 60 2.8 Micro lenses. I get far more use out of my 60 2.8 than I do the other 2 lenses combined. However I wouldn't give those other 2 lenses up either - you need them when you need them. My other main lens is the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and you have that range covered nicely with your 18-55 (if you get a chance to upgrade to the 18-105 from the 18-55 I would recommend that as well - but one thing at a time! :)) Now I've given you a very brief overview as I see it for those 3 types of lenses and obviously much more is involved in the determination as to which one you end up with. However you'll find that NAS ([U]N[/U]ikon [U]A[/U]cquisition [U]S[/U]yndrome) is quite a virulent disease and one that never seems to go away - it just gets stronger over time. Completely agree. I have the Sigma 10-20 and love it! 2nd hand lenses are a great way to go! You can save lots of money and still end up with great quality. The 55-200? Definitely sell it! A no brainer since you have the 55-300. :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Which lens would be best for next purchase...telephoto, wide angle or macro?
Top