Which lens would be best for next purchase...telephoto, wide angle or macro?

darlenec59

Senior Member
I have a Nikon D3000 purchased last summer. I only have the kit lens, which is 18-55mm. I am considering purchasing the Nikon 55-200mm, F/4-5.6. I like to shoot a lot of landscapes and wildlife and feel this is the next lens I really need. I do also like to shoot close-ups of flowers so a macro would be nice too, but can only afford one and if I had to choose between the landscapes/wildlife and close ups of flowers, at the moment, I do more landscapes. That being said, would I get more use out of a telephoto or wide angle and isn't the 18-55mm a sort of wide angle anyway? Hope I posted this correctly, it's the first time I am posting a question without responding to someone else's thread! Thanks!
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
For landscape, I would go with a wider zoom in the 10-20 or 12-24 range. The Nikon would be my first choice if money was no object, but I personally use the Sigma 10-20 and am very happy with it.
Also consider trying to get them second hand where you can save quite a bit.

Happy shooting.
 

KWJams

Senior Member
I don't do a lot of close ups so I went with the 55-200mm Nikkor lens for my D5000 and then pretty quickly discovered that most of the real cool stuff was further away than I thought and got a 55-300mm Nikkor which I have really been enjoying.
Just haven't figured out what to do with the 200mm lens? Sell it or keep it??
When taking pictures of people the 300mm lets me get in close without making them feel like I am too close and that is a big plus in my opinion because they don't act so restrained in showing emotions.

With landscapes my goal is get a great shot but not fool myself into thinking it is the next cover for a magazine. The 300mm choked down to 55mm is basically just a smidgen above the kit lens' range.

Hope this helps.
 

bluenoser

Banned
I have a Nikon D3000 purchased last summer. I only have the kit lens, which is 18-55mm. I am considering purchasing the Nikon 55-200mm, F/4-5.6. I like to shoot a lot of landscapes and wildlife and feel this is the next lens I really need. I do also like to shoot close-ups of flowers so a macro would be nice too, but can only afford one and if I had to choose between the landscapes/wildlife and close ups of flowers, at the moment, I do more landscapes. That being said, would I get more use out of a telephoto or wide angle and isn't the 18-55mm a sort of wide angle anyway? Hope I posted this correctly, it's the first time I am posting a question without responding to someone else's thread! Thanks!

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 - A Landscape lens:

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 - A Wildlife lens

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 - A Macro lens

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 (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) is quite a virulent disease and one that never seems to go away - it just gets stronger over time.


For landscape, I would go with a wider zoom in the 10-20 or 12-24 range. The Nikon would be my first choice if money was no object, but I personally use the Sigma 10-20 and am very happy with it. Also consider trying to get them second hand where you can save quite a bit..

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.

Just haven't figured out what to do with the 200mm lens? Sell it or keep it??

The 55-200? Definitely sell it! A no brainer since you have the 55-300. :)
 
Last edited:

KWJams

Senior Member
You are correct. Since I don't know anyone close by that would need it, I am not sure how the best way to go about it, yard sale, Craigs List, Ebay, newspaper ad or flyer's nailed to telephone poles.
 

bluenoser

Banned
The 55-200? Definitely sell it! A no brainer since you have the 55-300. :)

You are correct. Since I don't know anyone close by that would need it, I am not sure how the best way to go about it, yard sale, Craigs List, Ebay, newspaper ad or flyer's nailed to telephone poles.
I've done most of my selling through craigslist and some other free sites in my area with great success. I have also used Fred Miranda's site to both buy and sell - things always go quickly there. The 55-200 is still a pretty popular lens so if it's priced right it should go quickly.

Everything bluenoser said is spot on. Absolutely perfect advice.

Well there's a first time for everything! LOL! :) (thanks Jack)
 

fotojack

Senior Member
There is a free site called Kijiji, which I use almost exclusively, and I might add, with excellent results. Go to eBay Classifieds (Kijiji) - Post & Search Free Local Classified Ads. and click on your city or the one nearest you. Very easy to navigate this site.
For bluenoser, may I suggest Kijiji City of Toronto Classifieds: Free Local Classified Ads for City of Toronto, Ontario . for darlene, may I suggest Buffalo Classifieds - Free Classifieds Ads for Buffalo, New York at eBay Classifieds (Kijiji).. You may both find one closer to your actual area. :)
No no......please don't thank me. I do this all the time. :)
 

darlenec59

Senior Member
Thank you Fotojack! Next question in this same vein, I just found a Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens on B&H Photo's website for $119 (!!). This is a great deal for me as I can't afford to spend more than $200 for a lens right now so need to save, save save! My question, is size of the lens - is a 70-300mm going to be difficult to manage manually holding without a tripod? I don't want to be tied to a tripod all the time. Thanks again everyone!
 

Mike150

Senior Member
Thank you Fotojack! Next question in this same vein, I just found a Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens on B&H Photo's website for $119 (!!). This is a great deal for me as I can't afford to spend more than $200 for a lens right now so need to save, save save! My question, is size of the lens - is a 70-300mm going to be difficult to manage manually holding without a tripod? I don't want to be tied to a tripod all the time. Thanks again everyone!

The lens you're looking at is not a VR lens. When going out to 300mm, you'll probably need a tripod, or a very steady hand. I for one, can not hold the camera steady enough get a good photo without VR. I'm also saving my loose change every day to get the 55-300vr myself.

At $119, you're looking at the Import version of the lens as opposed to the USA version. They are the same lens, but there is a difference in how it gets imported into the US, and how the warranty is handled.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
OK, this question is going to be difficult to answer, not knowing how steady you can hold a lens to avoid camera shake. I'm going to assume the 70-300 you're talking about is a non VR lens. This kind of lens would be best used with a tripod, or at least a monopod. If you're really steady with it, and use fast shutter speeds and/or higher ISO's, then I would say it would be fine. Just realize that the larger the lens without VR or a tripod, the more chance of camera shake is involved. $119 is a great price for that lens. I hope this helps in your decision. :)
 

Eye-level

Banned
I don't know how well suited it would be for landscape work but you might consider looking at the old 55/2.8 micro nikkor which is an incredibly versatile lens and readily available cheap! With the crop factor you are talking about 82.5mm focal length which is a short telephoto that could take in lots of landscape, would make for an excellent half length portrait lens, and could do some up close stuff too...that is quite a package for less than 150 bucks.
 

bluenoser

Banned
Just a caution on the older lenses: Don't forget that most of these older lenses won't auto-focus (and may not meter) on the D3000. Macro work is usually done with manual focus so it's no big deal but it's good to be aware of the lack of AF with the D3000 and other entry level Nikon bodies.
 

Eye-level

Banned
Just a caution on the older lenses: Don't forget that most of these older lenses won't auto-focus (and may not meter) on the D3000. Macro work is usually done with manual focus so it's no big deal but it's good to be aware of the lack of AF with the D3000 and other entry level Nikon bodies.

One of the great things perhaps the greatest thing about the F mount system is it's non-obsolescense...with that being said James makes a very good point - that is the old Nikkors likely will not meter with the new bodies. Don't let that stop you though!!! :)
 

Sambr

Senior Member
One of the great things perhaps the greatest thing about the F mount system is it's non-obsolescense...with that being said James makes a very good point - that is the old Nikkors likely will not meter with the new bodies. Don't let that stop you though!!! :)

If it's a 70-300 "G" it will work on your D3000, if it's non VR no problem at 300mm use a beanbag works great. I use one with my D300& Nikon 300f4 when I don't want to carry a tripod.
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
As previously mentioned, you're really talking about a need for 3 different lenses:

  • Landscape (wide-angle)
  • Wildlife (telephoto)
  • Macro
I think you would get more bang for your buck going with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro. This lens is a bit more expensive at $239, but still in your price range. It also adds macro functionality (which is 1:2, not true 1:1 macro) and will produce the same image quality as the mentioned Nikon lens. This lens also has a noted improvement in auto-focus speed over the above Nikon lens, which is important for wildlife.
 

darlenec59

Senior Member
As previously mentioned, you're really talking about a need for 3 different lenses:

  • Landscape (wide-angle)
  • Wildlife (telephoto)
  • Macro
I think you would get more bang for your buck going with the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro. This lens is a bit more expensive at $239, but still in your price range. It also adds macro functionality (which is 1:2, not true 1:1 macro) and will produce the same image quality as the mentioned Nikon lens. This lens also has a noted improvement in auto-focus speed over the above Nikon lens, which is important for wildlife.

Anthony - Thanks for the info on this Sigma lens. I decided I am going to save a bit longer to be sure I get the lens that will work best for me and that I will be happy with. I am going to look into this Sigma lens. It's only a little bit more than I wanted to spend and sounds a lot more versatile than what I was looking at. Thanks!
 
Top