what lens? (D3100)

mick1985

mick1985

Suspended / Banned
Messages
52
Name
mick
Edit My Images
Yes
Guys,

Looking for suggestions for another lens for my D3100 camera, I feel I am being limited now by the fact I have only the 18-55 kit lens, and am looking to upgrade to something a bit more versatile.

Nothing particularly specific in mind, Im just looking for a cheap versatile lens that can be used for general shooting (more a walkabout lens than anything specidic at this point).

Ive got a holuday to Canada coming up in a few weeks, so looking for something that I can use for holiday snaps (I realise my kit lens will probably suffice for this), want to capture Niagara falls and the fireworks there while im there.

I also do a little landscape, and some flowers/ animals, a bit of everything really.

Had in my mind a 55-200 or 70-300, as these both seem to be reasonably priced at up to around £300-£350 (well, the 70-300 anyway), wouldnt want to spend more than around 4-450 really, but plan on maybe buying a lens over in Canada as they somehow seem to be cheaper on Canadian sites than here?

Can anyone suggest either one of these two lenses, or perhaps something that might be better suggestions from your individual experiences?

Sorry for the long waffling post, but i wanted to provide a bit of information so I get some good opinions/thought back.

Thanks in advance.

Mick
 
IF you buy in Canada you'll have around $550 up to $700 (if you stretch to 400-450 pounds) so with that you could get the:
Nikon af-s 55-300 ed vrII for around $400 + tax
Nikon af-s 70-300 g ed vr for around $500 + tax
Tamron 70-300 VC USD for around $500 + tax
Sigma 50-200 os hsm for around $300 + tax

Don't know how much cheaper they are than teh UK but these listed are with stabilization and AF motors far as I know. Tax is 13% here.
 
Last edited:
interesting, it would seem there is not a terrible amount of differences in prices as i was prevously led to believe.

Does anyone know of any reason why someone would choose the 55-200 over 70-300? surely the one with more reach is always going to be slightly more desireable? even if it is slightly more expensive?

thanks for the reply myrdhinn :thumbs:
 
the 55-200 VR is very cheap. brand new is around £100 - £130 where as the 70-300Vr is couple of hundred pound.

55-200 is shorter and weight less than the 70-300.

Image quality wise i personally would go for 70-300.
 
yeah must admit im being swayed more toward going down the 70-300 route.

thought there may have been options I wasnt considering though, but It seems to come recommended as a good starting point anyway, thanks :thumbs:
 
mick1985 said:
Does anyone know of any reason why someone would choose the 55-200 over 70-300?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 55-200 balances far better on the smaller body, having been designed specifically for that series (originally the D40) of camera. Apart from being "nose-heavy" the D3100/70-300 combo looks really silly :lol:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, the 55-200 balances far better on the smaller body, having been designed specifically for that series (originally the D40) of camera. Apart from being "nose-heavy" the D3100/70-300 combo looks really silly :lol:
Click to expand...

luckily im not vain enough to care how my setup "looks", only how the pictures coming off of it look :thumbs:

and I have a planned upgrade to another body soon, most likely a D90 :)
 
Well im currently using a D60 with Kit lens also i have just purchased a Nikon 70-300 from the argos outlet off ebay which comes in at £304 delivered which is a great price when jessops are charging around £450.

I do realise it looks a little silly at the lens i huge and the body only small but as you said im not to fussed and also switching to D90 in the next couple of weeks.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, the 55-200 balances far better on the smaller body, having been designed specifically for that series (originally the D40) of camera. Apart from being "nose-heavy" the D3100/70-300 combo looks really silly :lol:
Click to expand...


:shrug:
I used a 70-200 on a D3100. Never felt front heavy unless I had both hands on the camera body, but who shoots like that? :lol:
 
ausemmao said:
:shrug:
I used a 70-200 on a D3100. Never felt front heavy unless I had both hands on the camera body, but who shoots like that? :lol:
Click to expand...

I use to use 70-200 f2.8 on my D5000, it don't feel front heavy but felt odd in a way because the body is super light ....... even i have a grip on the D5000 it still feel abit odd.

But perfectly useable without a problem, so i can't see a 70-300 will be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top