new lens advice

[piliff]

Hi all. I need some guidance to buy a new lens. I have a D3100 with the standard 18-55, and I now want a zoom lens. I can buy a Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 di ld macro for 109.00, or a Nikon 55-200 f4-5.6 afs vr dx lens for 123.00. The Tamron is a bit longer zoom but might not be as good quality, and it says it is a macro lens, so would it not be any good for long zooms? Any ideas on any other makes would help, too. This will be my first extra lens purchase, and for a while, too, so I don't want to waste the money on something not suitable.

 

[fotojack]

Personally....I'd get the Tamron 70-300. Longer reach, cheaper than the Nikon. Have you considered the Nikon 55-300? Excellent lens for a little more money than the Tamron.

 

[piliff]

i would get the nikon 70-300 but it is about another 100.00 on amazon at present and i dont have the extra cash to spare, i just didnt want to get the tamron if it wasnt going to give good results thats why i was considering the 200 nikon lens, but was swayed by the macro facility on the tamron, just bit worried that the tamron wont have and stability mode on it.

 

[Rexer John]

VR is worth a lot more than you pay for it IMHO.

I bought a Sigma 70-300mm lens, really happy with image quality but I have to use a higher shutter speed to get good focus or need to use a tripod before it would be needed with VR.
No problem with that but needing a higher shutter speed could mean increasing ISO. I can see myself selling the lens at some point and buying a VR lens to replace it.

Remember, VR should be turned off if you do use a tripod.

 

[piliff]

so would you get a nikon 55-200 with vr rather than the tamron , why does the vr need to be turned off when on a tripod too?

 

[Rexer John]

It might hurt the wallet now but I'd take Fotojacks advise with the Nikkor 55-300 VR. Money spent now is money saved later.

VR actually causes movement when used on a tripod. You want the lens elements and tripod solid.

If I couldn't stretch to the 300 VR I would drop to 200 VR but I know I'd regret it when the wallet recovered.

 

[piliff]

now im more unsure what to do, cant afford the nikon 300, but should i settle for the 200 nikon and better quality rather than the tamron, anyone used the tamron lens at all to compare

 

[fotojack]

now im more unsure what to do, cant afford the nikon 300, but should i settle for the 200 nikon and better quality rather than the tamron, anyone used the tamron lens at all to compare

Well...the reason I suggested the Tamron is because of the extra reach. As for the quality between the two....that's always debatable. I also made the suggestion because of budget restraints. Believe me, I know all about budget restraints! lol Personally, I think you'd kick yourself for getting the Nikon 55-200. Nice lens....but not THAT nice. I've compared the 2 lenses in question, and I found the Tamron to be of excellent quality for the money. You can always sell it later on if you like, for a Nikon lens of your choice. Obviously, it's your money to waste as you see fit.

As for not setting VR when on a tripod....think about it. What's the purpose of Vibration Reduction...to reduce or eliminate vibrations, right? So.....staying with this concept.....there IS no vibration while the camera is on a tripod, thereby eliminating the need for the VR function. See Rexer John's second paragraph in post #6 also for another reason.

 

[Rexer John]

As I understand it, there's one or more elements in the lens that "floats" to counter any lens wobble/shake.
It is made free to float when the shutter is half pressed, which significantly stabilises the image.
When you do a tripod shot in VR mode, the lens is allowed to move from it's fixed position and it takes a fraction of a second to settle. That's enough to blur a shot that is taken immediately, even the mirror flipping can cause a slight jolt of the floating element in VR mode.

Basically the VR lets the lens wobble to counter your hand wobble. You don't want it to be allowed to wobble when it's on a tripod.

That's why all VR lenses have a switch to turn the function off.

 

[Marcel]

If you don't have the money to buy the lens you want, you should not buy the other lens that you can afford now. You would save a lot of money if you only buy once. If you want the Nikon 70-300 VR, wait until you can buy it. How long is that going to be anyway? Why do you absolutely need the lens that is not right NOW when you can have the lens you'll love if only you could wait a bit?

 

[piliff]

thanks guys, being a very basic novice at present i didint want to cause myself more problems by having another lens that will need more adjustments to achieve good results ie, having the tamron as it was suggested having to alter certain camera settings to get results, i would rather have the nikon lens and suffer the shorter length if it will give me a better picture without too much fidling about, would the 300 tamron be very jumpy at full length in hand held? if that was the case i wouldnt be using the extra length over the nikon 200 lens? but the tamron has the macro facility too, i guess i could use the tamron at full zoom and if its poor just go to 200 on it hance no loss at all, oh decisions to make, all very mind confusing to me, any more ideas welcome everyone , thanks

 

[SkvLTD]

Especially since you don't plan on getting anything after this sniping lens for a bit, I'd cough up another 100 for 70-300 VR. Bigger glass, good reach, etc.

 

[stix]

Originall posted by fotojack;

Well...the reason I suggested the Tamron is because of the extra reach. As for the quality between the two....that's always debatable. I also made the suggestion because of budget restraints. Believe me, I know all about budget restraints! lol Personally, I think you'd kick yourself for getting the Nikon 55-200. Nice lens....but not THAT nice. I've compared the 2 lenses in question, and I found the Tamron to be of excellent quality for the money. You can always sell it later on if you like, for a Nikon lens of your choice.

I've always been told to hold out for better glass. I understand that premise, but also know the reality of budget, and I like to experiment. Between my old Eos and the D3100, I've had a number of inexpensive (cheap) lenses. I haven't lost more than $20 at re-sell, and even made a few bucks on one. I deal ebay alot, so that may not be common. Thats a small risk for the chance to experiment, before spending big money on high quality glass.
I've learned alot from having different lenses. Thats knowledge you won't get, waiting until you can afford one lens...that may not be the "rite" one. My 2 cents.

I have a Tamron 55-200, a Sigma 70-300 and the 18-55vr Nikon lens. I bought the Tamron first and quickly found I wanted more reach. I was concerned about the gap from 55-70mm, if I sell the 55-200, but am finding I rarely use that range.
I don't see much (if any) quality difference between the three. But you hit a good point on handheld, full-zoom shots...it's tough to get crisp shots at 300mm, at slower shutter speeds. VR may help, but I doubt you'll eliminate that issue without faster (ie:expensive) glass. I use a tripod alot so it's not an issue for me, same for the lack of VR.
I haven't tested any of them for very fast action yet. But in moderate sun, the Sigma's done well (at full zoom) with the pups playing in the yard.

 

[gqtuazon]

Something in between.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens 2197 B&H

 

[Rexer John]

Something in between.

Product Highlights

• DX-Format Zoom
• Equivalent to 82.5-450mm in FX Format

FX is a bigger sensor, so wouldn't it be a shorter focal length equivalent in FX format?
I think they multiplied by 1.5 instead of dividing by 1.5.

The FX would automatically crop anyway wouldnt it? So no gains to bed had in FX, unless I've got it wrong?

Not that this has anything to do with the original post as it's for a DX anyway.


EDIT: Doh: I get it. They are saying an FX would need an 82.5-450 to get the image composed the same for the larger sensor. Correct? Damn cameras are hard work, lol.

 

[Bill4282]

When I started to upgrade, my first purchase was the better model 18-55 than the kit lens. My next purchase was the 55-200 with VR and better glass. My next purchase will be something in the 18-xxx zoom for when I don't want or can't carry my camera bag. Just what works for me. Also, don't forget your ND and circular polarizer filters.