£225 what would you buy..

A

AndyG123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
398
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys. Santa clause has been and he's gave me a couple of money envelopes. With £225 in total...
I know I've put posts in here about pet photography etc but if we were to disregard that.
If you had £225 for something. What would you buy? Be it new, second hand, or mpb. I will be able to put maybe £75 extra towards it aswel. To bring me to £300...
Current kit consists of
D3300 body
18-55 mm kit lens
70-300 kit lens.
35mm 1.8 nikon lens
Neewer 560 flash with small softbox.
2 x tripods (only cheap ones)
2* fm reciever and transmitter set.

What would You go for if you shoot general things...
Astro, portraits of my wife and child and landscape. I don't
have a set focus I just appreciate all kinds of photography.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Where do you find you are struggling? Think complete picture ie skill level, equipment, pp etc. For me it would be a day at the British Wildlife Centre. I guess what I’m saying is there’s more than just equipment
Click to expand...

This^
No one can tell you what to buy, you need to prioritise your ‘areas for improvement’. And to do that you might need some c&c on your current work.

All that said, I’d upgrade the standard zoom (unless you’re happy shooting at f8) to either a 2.8, or the shorter Sigma 1.8 which is a proper photographers tool.
 
Phil V said:
This^
No one can tell you what to buy, you need to prioritise your ‘areas for improvement’. And to do that you might need some c&c on your current work.

All that said, I’d upgrade the standard zoom (unless you’re happy shooting at f8) to either a 2.8, or the shorter Sigma 1.8 which is a proper photographers tool.
Click to expand...
what is the Sigma 1.8 you are to?
 
AndyG123 said:
what is the Sigma 1.8 you are to?
Click to expand...

I think @Phil V is referring to the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art, which by all accounts is great, a really great bit of glass, but a bit heavy perhaps on the D3300 body. You'd also struggle to get one for £300.
But you could find the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, both of which are much better than the kit lens and will cost less than £300, especially if looking secondhand.
The improved quality of the glass over the kit lens will help massively, as will the fact that those are f2.8 lenses. But it's also important to spend time learning and practicing, as said above, it's not all about gear. (That said you don't have to spend money on training courses, it depends how you learn best).
 
Yeah I've seen the posts about going to the wildlife center. But I do feel quite lucky with where I live.. I have beaches, woodland parks, countryside and numerous parks with animals, butterflies (although the humidity makes everything impossible to shoot)
My kit lens even on iso 100 with a tripod and decent lighting still sometimes doesn't give the sharpest shots and can have a lot of noise. So the idea of the 17-50 is more appealing.
As is the 105 macro. Both very different.
 
AndyG123 said:
Yeah I've seen the posts about going to the wildlife center. But I do feel quite lucky with where I live.. I have beaches, woodland parks, countryside and numerous parks with animals, butterflies (although the humidity makes everything impossible to shoot)
My kit lens even on iso 100 with a tripod and decent lighting still sometimes doesn't give the sharpest shots and can have a lot of noise. So the idea of the 17-50 is more appealing.
As is the 105 macro. Both very different.
Click to expand...
I'd sort out your main walkabout lens first before worrying about a macro.
I had the previous version of the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and found it to be brilliant and a massive improvement over the kit lens.

There is also an equivalent Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 to consider which is around the same price as the Sigma and meant to be as good.
Worth noting that the Tamron comes in 2 flavours, a VC (vibration compensation) version and a non-VC version which some reckon is actually sharper.

If you like specs, here's a comparison of the Sigma, Tamron and a couple of Nikon kit lenses, via DPReview

And MPB have a Sigma in stock too: https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...50mm-f-2-8-ex-dc-os-hsm-nikon-fit/sku-703037/
 
Perhaps if you sold the kit lens and the 35 1.8 you could stretch to the sigma 18-35 1.8
 
AndyG123 said:
What would You go for if you shoot general things...
Astro, portraits of my wife and child and landscape. I don't
have a set focus I just appreciate all kinds of photography.
Click to expand...

With those photo objectives I'd avoid the wildlife centre then. ;)

An upgraded standard zoom would probably be good for general use and landscapey stuff, and might make the difference between pics that are OK but you wish they were crisper to having confidence in your kit so that you stopped thinking about the lens so much. The 18-35 would be a great landscape lens, but not so good for portrait work unless you like your sitters to have big noses. :p If you were serious about the portraits then a prime around 60mm to 105mm might be good, depending on the space you have available, but that's a bit specialised, and probably wouldn't get much use unless it were a macro lens too.
 
Brazo said:
Perhaps if you sold the kit lens and the 35 1.8 you could stretch to the sigma 18-35 1.8
Click to expand...
Santa just bought me the 35mm I wanted that prime to make me think about my shots and composition a bit more instead of having the ability to zoom in our out to change my range and get lazy.
 
OK, having just been browsing, Ffordes have a couple of used lenses that might be interesting:

50 f1.8G for £119 http://www.ffordes.com/product/17122017232781
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for £169 http://www.ffordes.com/product/17110711375781

The two together would come in under your budget and would give you a decent walkabout zoom & a short-ish telephoto for rapidly running children etc. Not everyone likes a 50 on crop, but I've found it a very useful focal length for everything from walks in the country to people.

Something altogether more left-field would be this tokina 12-24 for £249 - useful for interiors and extreme landscape work. http://www.ffordes.com/product/16071314174381
 
Last edited:
Get a good photographers bag that can hold all your gear and a tripod at the same time. And a quality tripod and head instead of cheap ones.
 
A decent tripod and head - £300 should get you something decent 2nd hand.
 
AndyG123 said:
What would You go for if you shoot general things...
Astro, portraits of my wife and child and landscape. I don't have a set focus I just appreciate all kinds of photography.
Click to expand...
A long weekend in the Derbyshire dales. Would not only get me peace and quiet, the dales are just too far for a day trip - a couple of nights in a B&B would give opportunities that I cannot currently access.
 
Nod said:
A decent tripod and head - £300 should get you something decent 2nd hand.
Click to expand...
What difference would you see with a tripod head? Never actually used an expensive one. How much do these differ between a budget one? I understand that a decent quality tripod gives better stability etc. But I'd have thought the head wouldnt be that huge of a difference?
 
Ball heads offer great flexibility for positioning the camera but they are not good for panning. Gimbal heads are very good for panning but are not as flexible for positioning. Other heads have their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
Certainly don't need a £300 used pair.

I have a Monfrotto pair that is half that new and it is well made, stable, not too heavy and easy to tilt.pan etc and easy to lock in place.
 
john.margetts said:
Ball heads offer great flexibility for positioning the camera but they are not good for panning. Gimbal heads are very good for panning but are not as flexible for positioning. Other heads have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...
So for example what position could I achieve which I couldn't with a big standard one? I do get the panning, but I only use my camera for photography and the only need for panning. I wouldn't be shooting fast moving objects from a tripod what would require that fast smooth panning motion.
 
Flying birds. Trains. Racing cars. All need panning as do panoramas.
 
Last edited:
AndyG123 said:
So for example what position could I achieve which I couldn't with a big standard one? I do get the panning, but I only use my camera for photography and the only need for panning. I wouldn't be shooting fast moving objects from a tripod what would require that fast smooth panning motion.
Click to expand...
None.
It may be better quality,lighter, smoother, easier to use and last a lot longer but it won't help you get better quality pictures. A more adjustable tripod could help get a shot that you may not get with a more basic model.
 
AndyG123 said:
What difference would you see with a tripod head? Never actually used an expensive one. How much do these differ between a budget one? I understand that a decent quality tripod gives better stability etc. But I'd have thought the head wouldnt be that huge of a difference?
Click to expand...

A good tripod is just a waste of money when coupled with a cheap head.
Budget types will still move slightly after positioning and may carry on drooping especially when used a nose heavy combination.
Slight adjustments are nigh on impossible to achieve, you would be surprised how much difference a good head can make.
 
After reading this thread and looking at options and available I'm tempted by the 17-50 and mpb will give me £50 cash for my lens...

Now the 105 macro is tempting as it is something I could use indoors without any participation from my wife. I do enjoy a good photograph of a water splash..

The 12-24 would be an option as would the 11-16. Would find myself using that quite a lot for astrophotography.

For the level I am at I don't feel a tripod investment will be something I enjoy as much as say a new lens.

So many options. Been a very good thread though. It's gave me a direction to look at.
 
Is your kit lens a P or a G? If a G then I could be interested for £50
 
AndyG123 said:
After reading this thread and looking at options and available I'm tempted by the 17-50 and mpb will give me £50 cash for my lens...

Now the 105 macro is tempting as it is something I could use indoors without any participation from my wife. I do enjoy a good photograph of a water splash..

The 12-24 would be an option as would the 11-16. Would find myself using that quite a lot for astrophotography.

For the level I am at I don't feel a tripod investment will be something I enjoy as much as say a new lens.

So many options. Been a very good thread though. It's gave me a direction to look at.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you mention macro and astrophotography, both of those require a stable shooting platform
Best lens in the world is useless if its flapping about like an outhouse door in a storm
 
AndyG123 said:
After reading this thread and looking at options and available I'm tempted by the 17-50 and mpb will give me £50 cash for my lens...

Now the 105 macro is tempting as it is something I could use indoors without any participation from my wife. I do enjoy a good photograph of a water splash..

The 12-24 would be an option as would the 11-16. Would find myself using that quite a lot for astrophotography.

For the level I am at I don't feel a tripod investment will be something I enjoy as much as say a new lens.

So many options. Been a very good thread though. It's gave me a direction to look at.
Click to expand...

You don't have to spend a huge amount on a tripod to get a good one. A £300 carbon fibre one would be nice, but there you can compromise a bit.
You're talking about macro and water splashes, a good tripod is handy for macro particularly indoor stuff and it's essential for water splash photography.
As for astrophotography, you really do benefit from a good tripod.

For the past few years I've made do with a low end Manfrotto like this: Manfrotto Compact Light (excuse the Amazon link) but I after doing more long exposure, landscapes and indoor setup shots this last year, I decided to ask Santa for a better tripod.
I got the Manfrotto Element Big Traveller . It's currently on offer for £80 (only the black version though it seems) and is so much sturdier than the other one and the ball head is so much better for positioning and for holding the angle in place. It does also have the ability to swing around for panoramas (provided you level the tripod properly). And as a bonus you can detach a leg and use it as a monopod.
So you don't need to spend a huge amount but it's worth it if you're considering macro because at those distances just a tiny wobble can make the difference between sharp and fuzzy.
(And if you're interested, here's my water droplet shot with a setup shot below)
 
Last edited:
AndyG123 said:
For the level I am at I don't feel a tripod investment will be something I enjoy as much as say a new lens.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true newbie :)

You say that you aren't that impressed with the kit lens on a tripod with longer exposures, I think it is far more likely that the apparent softness you are seeing is down to vibrations in the tripod than insufficient lens quality. The Nikon standard zoom kit lenses are actually very good.

I think you need to consider what you want the outcome of this to be, do you want a new piece of kit to get excited about or do you want to make better photos? Each is as valid as the other (we all get GAS) but it will save yourself a whole lot of bother in the long term if you can figure this out first.

That said, if you want a shiny new toy then get a nicer lens always feels good (not sure £200 will get you that though), if you want to make better photos then spend it on a lesson, or going somewhere and shooting more.
 
In your shoes, I would bank the £300, and buy a second hand book, on photography for about £20.
I would read it from cover to cover and having digested it, THEN I would look at what would be the most useful item from the inspiration and interest gained from the book (s). I certainly wouldn't buy a 15-50 (or whatever it is) AND a 50mm prime - why would you? You have already got a 50mm on the camera in the zoom!
 
Nawty said:
Spoken like a true newbie :)

You say that you aren't that impressed with the kit lens on a tripod with longer exposures, I think it is far more likely that the apparent softness you are seeing is down to vibrations in the tripod than insufficient lens quality. The Nikon standard zoom kit lenses are actually very good..
Click to expand...
Its not just long exposures. It's little things like even shooting at 1/100th or 1/200th with a flash. focusing dead center on an eye (or a piece of fruit or anything) it still doesn'g give a full crisp shot. Even with iso 100 it pin sharp. I've tried this with a tripod, with handheld and remote shutter for testing purposes. I know everything can cause vibrations from the mirror moving to finger presses etc.. But wouldn't expect it in a controlled environment so to speak (indoors with tripod on lowest level with a weight underneath etc..)
 
After a bit more looking I'm thinking of getting a few bits what will be beneficial for me around the home for my son...
Looking into a set of 3 backdrops with stands. (white green black)
A five in one reflector.
A neewer 1.2m octagonal diffuser.
Another speedlight (I'm using the cheaper manual neewer 560 been playing the last day indoors and quite enjoying using it. Didn't realize how much is to be learnt with lighting)
And an. Umbrella holder bracket.

Going to look for a book on flash photography aswel and portrait photography.. Been watching a lot of videos from Zack Arias and found I quite informative. All comes to just over £100 and I dare say will give me a lot more opportunity to shoot having improved lighting in my home. As a lot of you have mentioned buying a lens isn't really going to give me more Opportunity to shoot subjects.

If anyone can recommend a good book I would appreciate that.
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top