Reading mode: Light Dark

New Nikon user: help for lens combo (prime + zoom)

Go to last post
P

PedSal

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I came from a Panasonic LX3 (very good camera that I will not sell!) P&S and move this weekend to a Nikon D5100. I also took into account the decision about to move to Nikon (vs Canon) because IQ but also on lens options. But this is messing me!

I will sell the included 18-55 VR that came with machine and I am willing to have 2 lenses. From the reviews I read my short list has moved to:

A) Nikon prime 35 mm 1.8G - I took some shots in the store and colours and sharpness are awesome (compared with 18-55 mmm); basically I will use it for portrait, indoor and landscapes.

b) Nikon 55 - 300 mm VR - not so expensive option with 300 mm zoom, not so bulky; I would like to have this zoom capabilities. Another option could be a lens on 70 - 300 range, but I will base my decision on IQ. Or if there is a clear difference in raise in IQ to lower my zoom range to 200 mm.

Can someone advice?

PS: I am liking the IQ of the camera! It's a clear improvement from the LX3 ... but at a bigger and weightier option!
 


Congratulations, the LX3 was the first camera I ever owned. This shot was taken with an LX3 two days after I bought it, (accidently ended up with two LX3's).

Firstly the 35 F1.8 is great value for money and well regarded considering its price point.

I have a D90 and use all FX lenses as I plan to upgrade later, I'd suggest purchasing FX lenses where appropriate if you don't have a big budget and are looking upgrade later. For some extra reach I'd consider the FX 70-300 VR unit. This is another lens where the price/quality ratio is excellent.
 
Versatile 2-lens kit, low price: 18-55vr / 55-200vr
Even more versatile 2-lens kit with better IQ: 16-85vr / 70-300vr

The 55-300 seems to be worse than the new 28-300vr (FX) lens.

I don't see a 35F1.8 / 55-200vr combo being very workable. 35 isn't very wide on DX. There is a good reason all those DX zooms start around 18mm.

If you really like primes, a 35/85 kit would be reasonable, except that Nikon hasn't updated the 85F1.8 with AF-S yet, and the current one won't autofocus on a D5100.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net
 
Many thanks for your help.
I will investigate more on your both suggestions.
But the 18-85 is a bit pricey!
 
Most Nikon lenses are pricey.

You never mentioned your budget, but because you went for the D5100, I assume you want the cheaper lenses.

Probably you'll want to look at Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. Some of their lenses are pretty good.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net
 
How does the D5100 stack up to the D90? Sorry didn't realise the D5100 didn't have an inbuilt motor.
 
Many thanks for your comments.

Well, probably I am starting to have much clear thoughts now and the 16 -85 VR could be a good investment for nice IQ sharp pictures, even though is a bit pricey. I presume it's better than the combo one ...

Can you tell me if this is good for portraits? Does it produces nice bookeh and shallow DOF?

On the other end, I would consider the 70-300mm option for outside photos (also portraits). But, I saw some options available and the Tamrom 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC USD receives a lot of positive comments. How it compares to nikon 70-300 in the same category?

Any comments welcomed. thx
 
PedSal said:
A) Nikon prime 35 mm 1.8G - I took some shots in the store and colours and sharpness are awesome (compared with 18-55 mmm); basically I will use it for portrait, indoor and landscapes.
Click to expand...
A good standard prime. I'd definately get it. It's a bit short for portrait unless space is limited, but a good general purpose lens.
PedSal said:
b) Nikon 55 - 300 mm VR - not so expensive option with 300 mm zoom, not so bulky; I would like to have this zoom capabilities. Another option could be a lens on 70 - 300 range, but I will base my decision on IQ. Or if there is a clear difference in raise in IQ to lower my zoom range to 200 mm.
Click to expand...
Don't know about this as have not used it. My friend bought one and returned it as he didn't like it at all, but he has some very expensive glass to compare it to.
PedSal said:
Can someone advice?
Click to expand...
Nothing wider than 35mm? That is an FX equivalent of 53mm. Your LX3 has a wide 24mm equivalent, and even that's not really wide. I'd keep the 18~55 VR. It's not a bad lens.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
PedSal said:
Can you tell me if this is good for portraits? Does it produces nice bookeh and shallow DOF?
Click to expand...
No, that is it's weak spot IMO. Bokeh is a bit fussy and a max aperture of f5.6 wide open is a tad slow, especially as it could do with being stopped down a little. The colour is not great for skin tone either, a bit magenta. It's a good lens though. Just not a portrait lens.

The Sigma 17~70mm f2.8~4 OS might be a better bet if you want a zoom that can do portraiture.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
The off-brand combo that I use is Sigma's 17-70 os with the Tamron 70-300 vc. It is more costly than the 18-55/55-xx combos but less costly than the 16-85/Nikon 70-300vr combo. I have seen good results for the Nikon 55-300 in this forum and elsewhere. I have thought about getting one for my wife's upcoming D5100 purchase. It is lighter and more compact than the 70-300 types which might make it a better fit for the D5100. The main drawback that I have heard about this lens is its slow af, especially out to 300mm. It is not supposed to excel with action shots. Also, without a rebate, it is about the same price as the Tamron which has a $50 rebate currently. The 70-300 type zooms are good for action. Good luck!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
If I were only getting two lenses, I would skip the prime entirely. My personal preference for inexpensive lenses on a DX body would be the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Tokina 12-24 f/4 DX II. Each of these is about $500. It looks like you prefer longer lenses, though. So you might either go with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR (available factory refurb for bout $400) or, if you are particulalrly attracted to the Nikon 55-300, you might consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to go with it.

The most important consideration to me is to get a bright enough standard zoom. For my interests (portraits and events), the 28-75 is a better focal range than the 17-50, which would be well-suited to sweeping landscape shots. Either would do for a general-purpose walking-around lens.

I personally find that my regrets on lens purchases usually boil down to the lens not being bright enough or not being sharp enough wide open. If you're like me, that will be your response to whatever tele you get -- good teles start at a price point that is measured in thousands of dollars, unfortunately. FWIW
 
Thanks to all the help.
What about a combo like this:
Prime Nikon 35 mm for indoor / landscapes
Outdoor Tamron 70 -300 mm USD

... and probably I keep the 18-55 VR that came with my D5100.

I saw good critics on that Tamron, but any comments on my new ideas ?
 
Shallow depth of field isn't going to happen much with lenses that are slower than about F4, at least not the shorter ones. I don't know about bokeh on the 16-85.

For portrait work, shallow depth of field and bokeh, you probably want the 85F1.8, except it won't autofocus on your camera.

With budget limitations, I suggest you first limit yourself to F2.8 or faster lenses, search for used lenses, and check out the 3rd party alternatives to Nikon.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net
 
PedSal said:
Thanks to all the help.
What about a combo like this:
Prime Nikon 35 mm for indoor / landscapes
Outdoor Tamron 70 -300 mm USD

... and probably I keep the 18-55 VR that came with my D5100.

I saw good critics on that Tamron, but any comments on my new ideas ?
Click to expand...
Keeping the 18-55 is the best idea. It's probably better for landscapes than the 35 since you have a chance to go wider and you don't need f/1.8 outdoors. The 35 is a really iffy purchase. I have one and I like its sharpness, but it's not really necessary for anything. I mainly use it when I want a light camera to walk around with.

I also have the Tamron and don't like it because of low contrast and poor sharpness. Maybe I have a bad one; most of the reports in this forum indicate it's better than the 70-300 VR Nikkor. But it's a big heavy critter.
--
Leonard Migliore
 
To re-enforce a previous post.....

If so, you need to consider a lens with a rating of 16mm (X1.5) for your Nikon DX camera. This will equal the wide angle of view that you get with the LX3
--
Brian :-)
 
Many Thanks to all that helped me to made up my mind. I now evolved to The following options:
1. Tamron 17 50 f2.8 aspherical
2. Tamron 70 300 usd

Any aditional comments?
 
Personally, I would keep the 17 50 which comes with the kit and buy a 70-300 VR Nikon. 20mm Gap in the mid 50-70 range does not need filling.
--
Brian :-)
 
should have said keep 18-55
--
Brian :-)
 
PedSal said:
Thanks to all the help.
What about a combo like this:
Prime Nikon 35 mm for indoor / landscapes
Outdoor Tamron 70 -300 mm USD

... and probably I keep the 18-55 VR that came with my D5100.

I saw good critics on that Tamron, but any comments on my new ideas ?
Click to expand...
this is the setup I have :
35 1.8G great for indoors fast shooting
18-55 VR walkaround good outdoors, some zoom, scenery.
Also close focusing (not macro)
70-300 VR great outdoors, 300mm becomes 450 something. VR for hand held tele

Used all 3 on my trip to Gatlinburg.

may consider 50 1.8G for indoor concerts,
40 2.8 macro for close focus still objects/copy work
 
Dont be so quick to drop the 18-55- its a good lens - does just fine until you compare it against something much more expensive like the 17-55.

70-300 vr is great for the long shots

35 1.8 is great though not that wide - I have the older 35 f2 and use it a lot

Get a flash like the sb400 - super useful to bounce flash indoors with your 18-55

have fun
PedSal said:
I came from a Panasonic LX3 (very good camera that I will not sell!) P&S and move this weekend to a Nikon D5100. I also took into account the decision about to move to Nikon (vs Canon) because IQ but also on lens options. But this is messing me!

I will sell the included 18-55 VR that came with machine and I am willing to have 2 lenses. From the reviews I read my short list has moved to:

A) Nikon prime 35 mm 1.8G - I took some shots in the store and colours and sharpness are awesome (compared with 18-55 mmm); basically I will use it for portrait, indoor and landscapes.

b) Nikon 55 - 300 mm VR - not so expensive option with 300 mm zoom, not so bulky; I would like to have this zoom capabilities. Another option could be a lens on 70 - 300 range, but I will base my decision on IQ. Or if there is a clear difference in raise in IQ to lower my zoom range to 200 mm.

Can someone advice?

PS: I am liking the IQ of the camera! It's a clear improvement from the LX3 ... but at a bigger and weightier option!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top