Next logical lens for beginner
- Thread starter Eob
- Start date
Hey Evacares what is that 55 - 300 like?
I am in the market for something like that - I have a D5100
It was recommended by someone on this site, I got it here: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR DX AF-S ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty I just got it today, and it was after dark, so I just tried it on my cats from further away than usual :calm: Im happy with it so far
Attachments
I'm guessing you don't know yet what kind of photography you want to do specifically... yet. I'm assuming you probably have the 18-55 kit lens. You just picked up the 55-300mm. So to round you out as you grow and develop I would suggest a 35mm 1.8 Prime lens (very photographically sharp lens) or the 40mm Macro which would give you that same sharp image of the 35mm but allow you to shoot up close macro stuff. Each link goes to a lens suggested and it fits in your budget. Between the two I think I would do the 40mm macro as you will soon discover bugs, flowers, and small stuff is amazing. Here is a link to some of the fun macro stuff you can do with that lens - the stuff under Moab Man was shot with the 40mm. http://nikonites.com/wild-life/5623-spiders.html#axzz2mNniJzq8
http://www.adorama.com/NK3518UV.html
http://www.adorama.com/NK4028UR.html
http://www.adorama.com/NK3518UV.html
http://www.adorama.com/NK4028UR.html
Last edited:
Want a nice all-around lens to have fun with? Pick up a previously enjoyed 18-105 zoom lens. It's the one lens you'll never tire of.
With my limited knowledge I also agree here with the 18-55mm VR or the 18-105mm. Covers a good range for a beginner.
It's an under rated lens. It's actually quite a good lens. However...should you opt for an 18-105, you'll be covered from 18mm to 105 mm instead of just 18mm to 55mm.
Another advantage to the 18-55 is it's small size and light weight. For some people, this is an issue.
Keep your lenses clean, and keep the hood on.
dramtastic
Senior Member
I recommend a Sigma 100-300mm F4 or a Nikon 300mm F4 with a 1.4TC. Why because they are great a bird/wildlife/sports lenses. In other words I decided what I was going to shoot the most then asked/researched what lens at my budget would be the best option and bought the Sigma.
Someone has already mentioned flowers and you go yeh, flowers are cool. Next person will say portraits and you will most likely think yeh, portraits sound cool. Next it will be birds, landscapes etc etc. Don't be led into the want you think you will want to shoot, lead the question with what YOU want to shoot then appropriate lenses can be recommended.
The 18-55mm, which I incorrectly assumed you had, allows you to shoot in those areas where you have less room to work.
Like Dram said, don't let us dictate the lens you buy. Choose what interests you to shoot. Starting out as you are I would avoid lenses that duplicate a range you already have. Of course budget will really play a role as lenses can get stupid expensive easy.
The two I linked fit your budget and give you really nice glass.
The 18-105 photojack suggested is a great lens that fills the void you have for close areas, but I don't know if it fits budget. It does overlap your 55-300 but your not duplicating so for a beginner I agree it is a great option.
One last thing, a macro is for ultra close up and regular shooting. A lens not designated as a Macro or Micro is not a close up bug/flower lens.
Like Dram said, don't let us dictate the lens you buy. Choose what interests you to shoot. Starting out as you are I would avoid lenses that duplicate a range you already have. Of course budget will really play a role as lenses can get stupid expensive easy.
The two I linked fit your budget and give you really nice glass.
The 18-105 photojack suggested is a great lens that fills the void you have for close areas, but I don't know if it fits budget. It does overlap your 55-300 but your not duplicating so for a beginner I agree it is a great option.
One last thing, a macro is for ultra close up and regular shooting. A lens not designated as a Macro or Micro is not a close up bug/flower lens.
Last edited:
I also vote for the 18-105 vr. Wonderful lens. Good close focusing distance too. Its a jack of all trades, but master of none though.
Does a little bit of everything well, but won't blow you away. I almost never seem to be without my 18-105. Its just a great workhorse of a lens.
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Does a little bit of everything well, but won't blow you away. I almost never seem to be without my 18-105. Its just a great workhorse of a lens.
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Refurbished Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR Lens - Refurbished by Nikon USA 2179 B
Here is the 18-105mm refurbished and within your budget.
Here is the 18-105mm refurbished and within your budget.
You don't really need a 18-105mm, since you already own a 55-300mm. Better go with 18-55mm Nikon (which is a "standard kit lens", anyway, and is very cheap), and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would be even better (wider maximum aperature than Nikon's standard kit, which makes lens "faster", that is, more apt to shooting in low light conditions, indoors, streets in the evening etc., without using a flash)... There is also a VC (optically stabilized) version of this lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tamron/17-50mm-f28-vc.htm
http://url.ie/khin
http://url.ie/khin
Last edited:
I know a lot has been said already regarding the 18-105, but I wanted to say a little more. Someone in your situation, having the 55-300, may at first think to choose the 18-55 over the 18-105 with the reasoning that having a range out to 105 is too much overlap with the 55-300. You can nudge this discussion either way. I have both, and without a doubt, I would say don't worry about the overlap and go with the 105. The 18-105 is a great range for a LOT of day to day photography. You may not want to carry that 55-300 everywhere or you may not want stop and change lenses just to get a bit more reach over the 55. When the dust settles, you will be mainly using the 55-300 when chasing birds or other wildlife or sporting events, etc. The 18-105 will give you a more handy range over the 18-55 for day to day pictures. Nothing wrong with the 18-55, just added convenience for always having a little more zoom with you if you choose the 105. If you really don't think you need the added range of the 105, then consider a faster lens like the 17-50 mentioned above.
As for macro lenses, they are certainly fun, but you might not need one for flowers. You can get a good flower shot with the 18-55, 18-105, or even the 55-300. Unless you are looking to get details of the bugs inside the flower, hold off on a macro until you know.
As for macro lenses, they are certainly fun, but you might not need one for flowers. You can get a good flower shot with the 18-55, 18-105, or even the 55-300. Unless you are looking to get details of the bugs inside the flower, hold off on a macro until you know.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I have to disagree with this logic. Sure, there's cross-over with the 18-105mm, but do you really want to have to swap lenses every time you cross a focal length threshold and need just a little more/less? The 18-105mm us also a "standard kit lens" and came with my D7000 and I believe is the standard in the D7100 kits. It's almost a perfect all-around lens for a DX body when you are just walking around. At f/3.5-4.5 you can get brighter with the Tamron, but unless there's a specific need for that I think the 18-105 is the better all around buy provided it's in your price range as well. Mine lives on my D7000.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Well, it's not just the "overlapping" (whereas nickt has made a good point). To my opinion, the 18-105 (kit) suffers from mechanical problems - I have heard (and actually saw a few such pieces) a lot of complaints regarding it's filmsy built - it's zoom ring is prone to falling off the tubus (that sort of isolating rubber layer underneath causing the problem+lots of wobbling) and it's af is prone to "hunting" more than on 18-55 (kit). On the other hand, I had a chance to use the aforementioned Tamron (non-vc) the other day at a birthday party, and I was amazed with what this little bustard can do (and with how robust it is!)! I would have purchased it myself if it wasn't for the fact it's a "DX only" lens (I hate the idea of one day, owning a FF Nikon, to be forced into using the lens in DX crop mode - so I have made my mind up never to purchase the Nikon bayonet lens that does not cover full frame sensor)...
I would have purchased it myself if it wasn't for the fact it's a "DX only" lens (I hate the idea of one day, owning a FF Nikon, to be forced into using the lens in DX crop mode - so I have made my mind up never to purchase the Nikon bayonet lens that does not cover full frame sensor)...
Last edited: