Lens Advice...

  • Thread starter Thread starter geckogirlxx
  • Start date Start date
G

geckogirlxx

Guest
I'm getting a Nikon D60 tomorrow, and I've been reading about the lenses that I'm probably going to be wanting after my 18-55mm VR kit lens.

I've found this one: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro (Nikon AF Excluding D40/D40x)
http://www.jessops.com/Store/s26776/0/Lenses/Sigma/70-300mm-f-and-4-56-DG-Macro-(Nikon-AF-Excluding-D40-and-D40x))/details.aspx?&IsSearch=y&pageindex=1&searchword=70-300%20macro&SortBy=SkuOfferingPriceASC&IsInStockOnly=False&comp=n

The price seems very reasonable for its capabilities (sports/wildlife & macro) - I don't know whether I'm missing something though, is this lens compatible with a Nikon D60 and is it actually any good? Because the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens is £349.99.... big difference! Any advice appreciated :)
 
first off, i would stick to the kit lens and save your money, after a few weeks, you will be getting used to the camera and know which area you will want your next lens to be.

no idea on the sigma though, but they are normally cheaper than the nikon equivelant
 
fletch5 said:
first off, i would stick to the kit lens and save your money, after a few weeks, you will be getting used to the camera and know which area you will want your next lens to be.

no idea on the sigma though, but they are normally cheaper than the nikon equivelant
Click to expand...

Thanks! Yeah, I'm sticking with the kit lens while I get used to it but I've just been reading around to try and get a grasp of the manual controls I'll be learning and what lenses can be used for different things, and thought I'd ask! I wouldn't be able to afford anything else yet anyway lol, I'll be saving up though!

It's just the VR that I'm wondering about I guess.... and whether that is worth the extra £250 :thinking:
 
If it's not compatible with a D40/x then it's no good for a D60 either. The difference between 200 and 300mm isn't as huge as it sounds, so if around £100 is your budget then I'd suggest getting a 55-200 VR off Ebay for about £130 delivered.
 
It's not compatible, it's not a real macro and from what I've seen it's not any good. :)

Like flash, in that price range I would get the Nikon 55-200mm VR. I have that both that and the 70-300 VR, and unless I'm expecting wildlife I often pack the much lighter 55-200. The 70-300 is the better lens though, especially if you can only have one out of the two.
 
Thanks for the replies, I guess it is a quality difference then!

As I say I won't be adding to the collection for a while yet, just having a read around! That 55-200 VR option does sound like one that I'll probably want though! :thumbs:
 
The Nikon 55-200 VR is a very sharp lens, even from its widest aperture. It's my general walkabout lens, even though I have a 70-200 F2.8
 
for the D60 and sigma lens you want the sigma 70-300 APO HSM as it has its own motor and will be fine on that body.

I have a canon equiv (without HSM) and it can produce good shots but it needs to be stopped down a bit and the macro is near useless!
 
I have the Nikon 55-200 VR and it is a very sharp lens. And the autofocus is pretty fast and accurate as well.

Andy
 
I am already looking at the Nikon 55-200 VR as the next purchase after a few more shifts at work!

They seem to sell on ebay for £120 delivered brand new. Is it reasonable to expect to pay that little and still get a genuine lens?
 
Doug said:
I am already looking at the Nikon 55-200 VR as the next purchase after a few more shifts at work!

They seem to sell on ebay for £120 delivered brand new. Is it reasonable to expect to pay that little and still get a genuine lens?
Click to expand...

I've been looking at that as my next one as well :lol:, seems really good especially for that price! I was looking on ebay and the UK sellers of them all seem to have pretty much 100% feedback! :)
 
Doug said:
I am already looking at the Nikon 55-200 VR as the next purchase after a few more shifts at work!

They seem to sell on ebay for £120 delivered brand new. Is it reasonable to expect to pay that little and still get a genuine lens?
Click to expand...

The lenses at that price are genuine, new Nikon lenses, but they are gray market, having originally been destined for the US of A, just like Kerso's stuff.....
 
How does that affect warrenty in the UK? I heard that the bodies have country specific warrentys but the lenses have world wide warrentys?

Would the 55-200 VR be good for motorsport type work?
 
Doug said:
How does that affect warrenty in the UK? I heard that the bodies have country specific warrentys but the lenses have world wide warrentys?

Would the 55-200 VR be good for motorsport type work?
Click to expand...

Most dodgy sellers will tell you that it's a worldwide warranty, but in real terms Nikon Uk will tell you to send it back to the country it came from for warranty work. The sellers on ebay doing the £130ish price however offer their own warranty, so you you should be ok. There are a couple of non-ebay UK sellers who do the lens for about £5-10 more and one of those offers a 2 year warranty and next day delivery.

I know people who use it for motorsport work, but really it's a bit "slow", you really need something with a constant f/2.8 aperture, but then you're looking at between £600 and £1200 :eek: which is probably a bit more than you want to spend at the moment.

Having said that it will work well enough to get you started and if you feel like upgrading and have bought it at the right price then you shouldn't lose too much when you come to resell, genuine Nikon glass will always hold it's value better than aftermarket stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top