Getting a new lense

MrNuttyM said:

Hi guys

I've had my D7100 for a year now, and I've maintained the kit lens of 18-105...But now I'm planning on getting several new ones. The one I'm sure about is a 35mm prime as a walkaround lens. However, as I'm on a budget, I can't go for the high end tele lenses, but still need something with a strong enough zoom, which left me with options such as:
a) 18-55 - which I thought would be reduntant as my kit already covers that,
b) 55-200 - which i'm considering, but as my kit is also somewhat in that range, would not
c) 55-300 be better?
Or should i just get d) 18-200 - but again, redundancy...

Any advice on which I should get would be greatly appreciated...

Click to expand...

The 18-105 is a pretty good lens for the dollar. The 55-200 and 55-300 are super zooms meant for range and not a big step up over the 18-105 in terms of image quality. Perfect for their intended use though.

What type of photography do you want to do?

You can sell the 18-105 and get 18-200 instead...

MrNuttyM said:

I've had my D7100 for a year now, and I've maintained the kit lens of 18-105 . . . but still need something with a strong enough zoom, which left me with options such as:

a) 18-55 - which I thought would be reduntant as my kit already covers that,
b) 55-200 - which i'm considering, but as my kit is also somewhat in that range, would not
c) 55-300 be better?

Click to expand...

If you need the longer reach, get the 55-300 which is, as you supposed, better than the other two.

On my D7100, I've been using a 18-140 and a 55-300 among various prime lenses. These are really good lenses. Based on my actual experience, I will not place any vague comment about "average IQ" next to these lenses.

ArShAsMe said:

You can sell the 18-105 and get 18-200 instead...

Click to expand...

This is actually not a bad idea. You'd be surprised by the performance of this versatile lens.

MrNuttyM said:

Hi guys

I've had my D7100 for a year now, and I've maintained the kit lens of 18-105...But now I'm planning on getting several new ones. The one I'm sure about is a 35mm prime as a walkaround lens. However, as I'm on a budget, I can't go for the high end tele lenses, but still need something with a strong enough zoom, which left me with options such as:
a) 18-55 - which I thought would be reduntant as my kit already covers that,

Click to expand...

18-55 VR2 only slightly better than 18-55VR1. Not better than your 18-105. If you can afford it, the kit lens to get may be 18-140

Consider 16-85 VR if you can afford it.

MrNuttyM said:

b) 55-200 - which i'm considering, but as my kit is also somewhat in that range, would not

Click to expand...

55-200 VR makes mate for 18-55, but redundant with 18-140

MrNuttyM said:

c) 55-300 be better?

Click to expand...

55-300 VR takes you to 300 vs 200, tradeoff in price/weight

70-300 VR best of the 3 consumer tele lens. Mate with 18-140 or 16-85

MrNuttyM said:

Or should i just get d) 18-200 - but again, redundancy...

Click to expand...

Consider 18-300 if you wish for the price.

MrNuttyM said:

Any advice on which I should get would be greatly appreciated...

Click to expand...

You could wait a month to see if Nikon offers any holiday lens sales or wait for March/April 2015. In the meantime safe funds to spend later. You can always watch for lens sale at Best Buy or your favorite seller. Most likely to see more camera + lens deals till 2015.

--
I Shoot RAW

MrNuttyM said:

Hi guys

I've had my D7100 for a year now, and I've maintained the kit lens of 18-105...But now I'm planning on getting several new ones. The one I'm sure about is a 35mm prime as a walkaround lens. However, as I'm on a budget, I can't go for the high end tele lenses, but still need something with a strong enough zoom, which left me with options such as:
a) 18-55 - which I thought would be reduntant as my kit already covers that,
b) 55-200 - which i'm considering, but as my kit is also somewhat in that range, would not
c) 55-300 be better?
Or should i just get d) 18-200 - but again, redundancy...

Any advice on which I should get would be greatly appreciated...

Click to expand...

If you are on a budget, absolutely get the 55-300, it is an excellent lens for the price.

It is very versatile, and you can even get pretty good macro and portraits out of it, it also has really nice bokeh.

In my opinion the 55-300 is the best value for money lens that Nikon has produced.

Perfect for your circumstances.

MrNuttyM said:

I've had my D7100 for a year now, and I've maintained the kit lens of 18-105...But now I'm planning on getting several new ones. The one I'm sure about is a 35mm prime as a walkaround lens....

Click to expand...

If by "walk-around" lens is meant something that will be the only lens at hand when you are on a walk or travel, and you want to be prepared for some interesting but before-hand indeterminate views and subjects, your kit lens will probably be better than anything else out there, with the possible exception of the excellent but pricey Nikon 16-85.

If, however, you know the type of photography you want to engage in but find your existing lens is limiting you, it will probably be one of the following:

1. Wide angle to accentuate the perspective or get more of an urban scene or interior into the frame: get used/refurbished the Sigma 10-20mm. ($350.-)
2. Longer telephoto for wildlife or similar: get the Sigma 70-300 ($160.-).
3. Low-light, hand-held photography: get Nikon 35mm f:1.8 ($200.-)

My suggestions take into account your budgetary considerations. Prices are approximate. While the first suggestion (wide zoom) is the costliest, it will probably open to you more photographic opportunities that you couldn't tackle with your kit lens than any of the other two. None of those three lenses would be much of an overlap in functionality of your 18-105, which, I propose, you should keep whatever else you decide to do.

Arne

My pick would be either 55-300 or the 70-300mm. Since you already have the 18-105, dont bother with any other 18-xx lens, unless you want to go for a do-it-all lens like 18-300.

Shunda77 said:

If you are on a budget, absolutely get the 55-300, it is an excellent lens for the price.

It is very versatile, and you can even get pretty good macro and portraits out of it, it also has really nice bokeh.

In my opinion the 55-300 is the best value for money lens that Nikon has produced.

Click to expand...

+1

(I personally prefer the bokeh rendered by the 55-300, which is soft and smooth, to that rendered by the 35/1.8G, which is harsh, loud and stiff.)

I 2nd (3rd, 4th?) the 70-300 vr. You can get it used or refurb at a discount. I got mine new for $200 off, but I add to buy a camera body to get that price. So far, I really like this lens with the D7100.

Hey guys!

Thanx for the quick and helpful responses.

To answer the question of what kind of photography I do, the answer is all sorts. Mainly landscapes and portraits, and when I have the opportunity, wildlife, and very rarely sport (sport rarely because the 18-105 doesn't exactly have the worlds best zoom )

The 18-300 sounds great...but it also looks heavy...(and is rather pricey ):-O especially for handheld. However at the same time, it's extended range makes a great deal more sense than the 18-200 :/ #Decisions

How does the Sigma 10-20 compare with Tamron's 10-24?

So to summarise: I'm now torn between Sigma 10-20 vs Tamron 10-24 and Sigma 70-300 vs Nikon 55-300 vs Tamron 70-300...which means help deciding between these would be highly appreciated...

I also read from one of the responses that some people would rather not get the 35mm if they are purchasing the 55-300?

Again, Many Thanks ^_^

NuttyM

MrNuttyM said:

I also read from one of the responses that some people would rather not get the 35mm if they are purchasing the 55-300?

Click to expand...

That might have been my response, in which I referred to both lenses in the same sentence.

No, I didn't say buy the 55-300 and not the 35. In parentheses, I was just referring to the comparative bokeh renditions. I happen to use both of them, among others.

MrNuttyM said:

Hey guys!

Thanx for the quick and helpful responses.

To answer the question of what kind of photography I do, the answer is all sorts. Mainly landscapes and portraits, and when I have the opportunity, wildlife, and very rarely sport (sport rarely because the 18-105 doesn't exactly have the worlds best zoom )

The 18-300 sounds great...but it also looks heavy...(and is rather pricey ):-O especially for handheld. However at the same time, it's extended range makes a great deal more sense than the 18-200 :/ #Decisions

Click to expand...

The 18-300 is great for the range, but be aware that there are necessary compromises for a lens to cover that range. The 55-300, for example, will give you much better results over the range it covers than the 18-300 will. Two lenses will always give you better image quality than one superzoom lens.

MrNuttyM said:

How does the Sigma 10-20 compare with Tamron's 10-24?

So to summarise: I'm now torn between Sigma 10-20 vs Tamron 10-24 and Sigma 70-300 vs Nikon 55-300 vs Tamron 70-300...which means help deciding between these would be highly appreciated...

Click to expand...

Forget about the Sigma 70-300. The Tamron focuses a little faster than the 55-300, but its closest focusing distance is further than the 55-300. This means the 55-300 is better for macro (especially tele macro) and potentially better for portraits. The Tamron is a bit better for action shooting, but is substantially heavier than the 55-300, this could be an issue if you desire the best performance from the lightest kit possible (hiking, landscapes etc). The bokeh from the 55-300 is possibly the best of all the xx-300mm lenses.

For my light weight Hiking/landscapes/nature kit I take the Nikon 16-85 and the 55-300, it really is a superb combination for this purpose and all fits into a small lowepro bag. With this set up I can cover wide angle landscapes, tele landscapes, birds, and plants/macro etc. Those two lenses really do pack a lot of punch for that general walk around purpose.

MrNuttyM said:

I also read from one of the responses that some people would rather not get the 35mm if they are purchasing the 55-300?

Click to expand...

The 35mm is a great fast lens, but is not an ideal portrait focal length, the 55-300 really serves a completely different purpose. Both lenses are worth having for different reasons.

MrNuttyM said:

Again, Many Thanks ^_^

NuttyM

Click to expand...

MrNuttyM said:

How does the Sigma 10-20 compare with Tamron's 10-24?

Click to expand...

You are very unlikely to notice any difference in use and none in final images. I suggested Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 simply because they were in production longer and good ones can be easily found on used market. I was very happy with mine. Sigma 10-20 f:3.5 (constant aperture) is, in my opinion, not worth the extra money; if one is spending that much, Sigma 8-16 would be my choice - that is what I traded my 10-20 for.

Arne

This is an excellent lens. Not too heavy, fast, very good VR, and very good IQ. You can find some good deals on it as well if you look around.