Choosing the right lens from stock.

so i got the d3200. im loving it, but i want a little bit more from it and the 18-55 lens just isnt giving me the distance i want. ive seen a lens that looks pretty decent the (Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Lens) .
but im not entierly sure if its the right choice. basically these two photos are currently the veiw out of my window. one is at 18mm and one at 55mm. in the distance is a cathedral. im hoping by choosing the lens in the link i can get a pretty decent shot come sunset (the sun sets behind the cathedral). please help

The only thing that lens lacks is VR. If you get the 70-300 4.5-5.6 G lens, you'll have VR.

i am on a bit of a tight budjet so i couldnt really afford a really expensive lens like that. would a 200mm lens give me the shots i want? i do have a second choice with a VR - here

dayvurd said:

i am on a bit of a tight budjet so i couldnt really afford a really expensive lens like that. would a 200mm lens give me the shots i want? i do have a second choice with a VR - here

Click to expand...

A 200mm would be like this (If my math is correct):







A 300 would net you this:

wow thats a brilliant perspective. nicely done

I have a 55-200 & 55-300 and one thing that I noticed is that they are SLOW lenses, they really need a lot of light.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

If you dont mind grey imports this is a good lens

Tamron SP AF 70-300 F 4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon

you could also crop your 55mm shot.

See i was hoping to also find out what kind of detail id have at such a long distance. Also is VR such an important thing to have? The options i have is 55-200 with VR or 55-300 with no VR s it worth loosing 100mm over it to get the VR? Im also guessing that the noise at 300mm is alot greater than 200mm depending on iso?

Whether you need VR or not is something we can answer for you. It all depends on your capabilties to hold the camera stead at long focal lengths. Some people can't get a sharp image at 50mm without VR, yet I know one guy who can handhold a 1,000mm with no VR. In a canoe. Out in the middle of the lake. On a windy day.

Noise is a result of the camera's ability to handle higher ISO, lenses have nothing to do with it.

I mean obviously it wont take a picture clearly enough at 300mm without a tripod, it would just look awful, especially at sunrise. I just dont really want to not get a VR and then not be able to sustain a shot at the length i want without a tripod. I think in all fairness id rather loose 100mm off a lens then getting the 300mm and no VR. Until i feel like my capabilities are being surpressed by the 200mm lens i may look onto longer lenses. Once i get a longer lens, well longer than an 85mm lens that is, i feel like alot more doors open in what kind of shots you can pull off

Image clarity, at least in the type of shot you posted, will not only be a function of your ability and gear, but also whether there's any atmospheric turbulence and particulate matter in the air.

I get that. I must say im no where near a pro level. I do it because i enjoy it, probably like alot of people. Im also going to go towards birds and animals etc, so from what ive read 200mm is a decent length for that kind of thing.

200mm good enough for birds ? not sure where you read that but good luck

How to Photograph Birds

Im on a budjet

Park birds you'll have a chance

Unless the birds are large and tame (or at least comfortable with us humans), 200mm is going to be rather short.

Well i live in the UK. So i dont really have any forests for hundreds of miles

I have a tamron 70-300 which came with my D3200. It's not a bad lens but has no VR, so if I was taking hand held shots, id need the shutter speed very high. This just wasn't always what I wanted. I now have a sigma 50-500 and can take great hand held pics of the moon with its VR.

Sent from my SGP511 using Tapatalk