Which lens to buy, a bit confused...please help?

mulge

mulge

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Name
Kerry
Edit My Images
No
Being a newbie I wish to get another lens other than the kit lens 18-55 that came with my nikon d3000. I do also have a sigma 70-300 but to be honest have not used to much as it is quite a hefty lens on the d3000 body. Inhale been looking at 18-200, 55-200, 55-300 but I just don't know which would be best. I have not got a fortune to spend and would probably sell my sigma 70-30 and replace with the new. Any help greatly appreciated!!
 
What are you going to be using the lens for?

And what is your budget?

Above may help?
 
Landscapes and some macro work. Portraits, animals etc is what i favour. Do I get a lens that ranges from 18-200 to use the one lens for all or go for kit lens and then another. Budget up to £200
 
Last edited:
Landscapes and macro tend to require very different lenses.

For the former, something like a 10-20mm is a good option but will be more than £200; for the latter, a 60mm, Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm are good options but again are rather pricey.

As for portraits and animals, you might get away with a 35mm 1.8 which is certainly good for indoors and fast for the animals.

You can get special tubes to adapt a lens for macro but to be honest I'd suggest you save a little more and buy the lens you need.
 
mulge said:
Landscapes and some macro work. Portraits, animals etc is what i favour. Do I get a lens that ranges from 18-200 to use the one lens for all or go for kit lens and then another. Budget up to £200
Click to expand...

I really can't see how a 18-200, 55-200 or 55-300 is going to help with Landscapes, Macros or Portraits? Plus, the majority of those Nikon lenses blow your budget!

Do you use the 70-300 you've got? If not, why buy another lens in that range?

What are you not happy with about your 18-55? Not enough range? Not good enough IQ?

Many newbies (myself included) get carried away thinking "I need another lens", but until you can say what is wrong with your existing kit and what its not doing for you, you might be better keeping hold until you can. ;)
 
Zarch said:
I really can't see how a 18-200, 55-200 or 55-300 is going to help with Landscapes, Macros or Portraits? Plus, the majority of those Nikon lenses blow your budget!

Do you use the 70-300 you've got? If not, why buy another lens in that range?

What are you not happy with about your 18-55? Not enough range? Not good enough IQ?

Many newbies (myself included) get carried away thinking "I need another lens", but until you can say what is wrong with your existing kit and what its not doing for you, you might be better keeping hold until you can. ;)
Click to expand...

[s1] ^^^^^^
I agree[/s1]

Very sensible answer to the OP dilemma
 
. . . ? My thoughts, 18-55, 70-300, covers the general newbie learning curve. I have a problem with 'heavy', most longer glass is heavy'ish, although the Tamrons do come out lighter . . . I think :thinking: but budget is going to be a broblem?

My answer was to invest in a light weight 'Monopod/Trekking pole', I can recommend the 'Expel View Finder' with a 'Kood BH-028Q ball head' . . . both myself and partner Hazel cannot deal with large heavy lumps these days, we both use these monopods.

£60 quid will include the quick release ball head. Not the whole answer, but will help take the strain, while you find out where you really want to go . . . :shrug: The Sigma 70-300 is not an expensive lens and therefor, trade in value is not high, so that will be a problem as well. However, I use the same Sig'ie lens when I need a bit of length, its a better lens than the price would suggest . . . and it has a 2.1 macro facility. Food for thought :thumbs:

CJS
 
Last edited:
I,m in the same position but wanted a bit more range, i managed to find a second hand camera place and got a Nikon 55-200 AFS and VR. Seems to do the job along with kit lens and suits my tight budget.
 
Gomas said:
Tamrons are still heavy.
Click to expand...

True, I meant lighter than some of the others . . . lighter is relative ;) Its all them glass elements you know. A prime lens will be considerably lighter, fewer elements. But then you dont have the flexibility, probably need to be manual? . . . cant win . . . :thinking: best not to confuse the issue:lol:

CJS
 
Have you tried your camera with a vertical grip? Adding one may well balance the body and the 70-300 quite nicely, this is what I have found from my own experience. If that gives you something you are comfortable with, then you could look at the sigma 17-70 which gives you that little extra for the portrait side of things.
 
Zarch said:
I really can't see how a 18-200, 55-200 or 55-300 is going to help with Landscapes, Macros or Portraits? Plus, the majority of those Nikon lenses blow your budget!

Do you use the 70-300 you've got? If not, why buy another lens in that range?

What are you not happy with about your 18-55? Not enough range? Not good enough IQ?

Many newbies (myself included) get carried away thinking "I need another lens", but until you can say what is wrong with your existing kit and what its not doing for you, you might be better keeping hold until you can. ;)
Click to expand...

Just stick with 18-55 and 70-300 for time being, try to explore these more. i was in very similar possition few months ago, but realised i don't really need another 3 lenses, just one "cheap but brilliant" 50mm. i have both 18-55mm and Sigy 70-300mm APO myself and still try to use them in different situations/setups. I know - these are not the greatest lenses in the world (18-55mm lacks IQ and light, Sigy is nowhere but sharp at 300mm at most times), but they can stil produce stunning pictures... All you have to do is practice :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top