Nikon d3100

D

Djedave

Suspended / Banned
Messages
139
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
So the funds are soon to be available and will be getting the camera soon. Now the question is what lens to get. At jessops they do the 18-55 but I have been told the 18-105 is a lot better. I am also after a zoom and again jessops offer the tamron 70-300.

Any suggestions??
 
The 18-105 gives you much more in terms of IQ and length over the 18-55. Another option would be a 17-50 Tamron 2.8?

Zoom wise, either the Nikon 55-200 VR or 70-300 VR would be very good. Depends how far you want to reach and how deep your pockets are.
 
Djedave said:
Thank you for that I will look at that one. I guess the nikon is 10x better than the tamron?
Click to expand...

I doubt 10 times better, but both Nikon zooms mentioned are very good performers and with the addition of VR really helps at long range. (not sure if the Tamron has any VR/IS or whatever they call it)

I'm sure someone who has used and owns the Tamron 70-300 would be better placed to comment that I.
 
If you do get the 70-300 do think of the 17-50 Tamron for your all rounder as it is much better than either the 18-55 and the 18-105.
 
The 18-55 VR is actually very underrated IMO. I certainly don't think it's IQ can be criticised in any way. I have seen a number of reviews suggesting that it may be better than the 18-70 and 18-105 kit lenses purely in terms of IQ. That said, it is let down by being a little toy like in construction (particularly the focus ring) and also having a rotating front element which makes using filters a pain. It's still a decent thing to start with though. The 18-105 is more versatile and overall a better lens but I wouldn't pay a fortune extra for it.

If you can get a good deal on body only, then as above the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (or the Sigma 18-50 2.8 that I use) is sharper, faster and available for £2-300, just make sure it's the one without VC.

For a telephoto, the Tamron 70-300 isn't bad for the money. It's great value but there is a certain element of 'get what you pay for' particularly in terms of build and sharpness at the long end especially wide open. I swapped mine for a Nikon 70-300 VR and its only now that I notice the limitations of the Tamron. If you can afford the Nikon, it's worth paying the extra. If you can't the Tamron isn't a bad option at all. There is always something better and more expensive in this hobby! The other good one is the Nikon 55-200 that others mention. Bit of a bargain too and it has VR which the Tamron doesn't.
 
Djedave said:
not sure just think the nikon 18-105 will give me so many more different options
Click to expand...

If you're thinking of getting a telephoto as well, I wouldn't worry too much. I'd say the 18-105 is better than the 18-55 but don't pay through the nose for it.
 
While the 18-55 is a decent lens for the money (I have the mk1 and the mk3 VR), I'd go for the 105VR as it has more reach and the end element doesn't rotate meaning filters are usable if needed.

Long end go for a 70-300, I have a 55-200 Tamron and I can count on 1 hand the amount of times I didn't want more reach with it when shooting wildlife, it's so limiting I am replacing it next. As for Nikon vs Tamron Vs the 3 different sigmas it will come down to money really, but at 300 (even 200) I think VR/VC/OS is something you will want.
 
Wildlife... as in birds / animals a long ways off and not very big?

You will need a good zoom length or a prime.

As you don't have big pockets there aren't too many options, the 70-300 has already been mentioned. I think the one that is more expensive would give you better results.

You may want to consider (and discount or save up for):
50-500 sigma
80-400 tamron
200-400...um nikon?
As they aren't cheap, perhaps look to hire one for a long weekend? At least you can then see whether its worth saving for?

If you dont mind manual focusing (probably close to inifinty in most cases) perhaps look to m42 adapter (15ukp) and a 300mm+ prime or older zoom? Ebay has these, think a tair 300mm will set you back around 80-100ukp and weighs in around 1.6kg... Meant to be nice (can't say whether they are - yet :D )
Also keep an eye out for older lenses, they will all be manual on the d3100 (as you have no motor in the body) but if you are lucky/research a bit you should be able to find a really good bit of glass.

Good hunting :)
 
Djedave said:
Just want to try and keep it as simple as possible. Cannot find anywhere a twin lens bundle with the 18-105 and 55-300 vr so looks like I will have to get one lens on it's own.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much you'll get the 70-300 any cheaper than Currys/Dixon's/PC World are doing on this offer (£303): http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/nikon-...-zoom-nikkor-telephoto-lens-00734762-pdt.html

Usually more like £390......

So maybe grab that today (offer ends today) and then source your 3100 and 18-105 afterwards?

I also think that i'm not sure the 18-105 is worth an extra £151 over the 18-55.... maybe get the 18-55 (which they virtually give away when you get the kit pack)...... see how you get on with it, then sell it if you think you need to fund a better lens later on??

I got £75 for my 18-55 (as new) when I sold it..... you could then pick up a 2nd hand 18-105 for about £100/£110?? So only £40 difference rather than £151?

Final Caution: Its the 70-300 lens that you want, the 55-300 is a lesser model with slower AF (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-300mm.htm)
 
Last edited:
Djedave said:
Thanks Zarch again. I missed out on the 70-300 but will keep looking for new deals. I think I agree that the 18-105 is not worth paying the extra £150+ at the moment. :(
Click to expand...

Correct. If your paying £200 for a 17 or 18mm upwards lens, look no further than the 17-50 2.8 Tamron. (another option to get you thinking) :D

Having had the 18-55 and now the 18-70..... I still crave one of those 2.8 affairs. ;)

On the zoom lens, i've just picked up a 2nd hand 55-200 VR and its a nice little lens for just over £100.

You will always pay a premium for new lenses, but in the 2nd hand market there appears to be a value that lenses in good condition don't seem to fall below.

Rough estimates
18-70 - £100
18-105 - £100
55-200 - £110
70-300 - £270

Maybe look at picking up a good deal on body only and hunt out some 2nd hand lenses?

MPB for example give 6 months warranty on all used items they sell: http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-lenses/used-nikon-fit-lenses/
 
Very new to this forum and photography in general, I found this thread as I have just ordered a lens for my d3000 from amazon and I wondered what the main disadvantage was of 55-300 compared to this at 70 - 300 listed above from Currys.
This is the one I ordered
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B003ZSHNCC/ref=oss_product
Logically or not I thought the wider range was an advantage
 
Last edited:
You should have probably made a new thread really about this.

The 70-300 is FF compatible so chances are the image quality on cropped sensor cameras will be very good it is also built better.
 
i was in exactly your position only recently, and i popped for D3100 with kit lens from currys, not being that experienced with modern stuff cant really match it to any other lens, i have shot about 5oo shots and am pleased with result bearing in mind i am new to dslr, can only improve,
i also bought a 55-300 nikor vr lens off of amazon at £80 cheaper than i could find anywhere else,
as for bundles park cameras do one http://www.parkcameras.com/c/39/Nikon-DSLR.html all in all i am pleased with the package i have...but only a newbie,
good luck
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top