User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  16
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Advice on lenses for beginners

  1. #1
    Member Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Advice on lenses for beginners

    Hi,
    Complete beginner looking to start out with a D3200 unsure of what lenses
    Unsure of what all the different lenses actually do and it the vibration reduction is actually going to make a difference as a beginner.
    Looking to photograph nature landscapes, small aquarium fish, wildlife, sports including rugby and water skiing.
    not looking to spend an absolute fortune as I am just starting out but don't want to waste my money on bad lenses

    Camera is available with the following lens kits

    18-105 non VR
    18-55 non VR & 55-300 non VR
    18-55 VR II
    18-55 non VR & 55-200 VR

    Other lenses I can easily access are

    Tamron 10-24mm
    70-300 non VR
    55-300VR
    50 1.8
    Sigma 18-250 macro
    Tamron 18-200
    55-200 VR II
    Tamron 70-300 macro 1:2

    also what are some other good lenses


    Thanks in advance
    Last edited by ameerat42; 21-11-2015 at 7:04pm.

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,141
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Welcome to AP, at this point as a beginner do not get to bogged down in what lenses. Learn the craft and then as you progress with your learning you will find out what lenses to use for what.. and upgrade your lenses anyway.

    I would say get the 18-55 non VR & 55-200 VR. This gives you a great range from 18mm to 200mm and will cover the wider end for the landscapes and the zoom end for the sport etc.

    Just get the camera and those two lenses and spend the next 12 months or so, absorbing all you can about photography etc. Then when/if you want to make this a long term hobby or more, you can start seeking out specialist lenses for each genre you like.

    When you get it, join in on the forums here, ask questions, read the feedback on your photos, and learn from it all. See you on the forums soon.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,879
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And, in case you do not know, "VR" stands for "vibration reduction".
    Other manufacturers call it OS - Optical Stabilistation, and IS - Image Stabilisation.

    It is a handy feature if you have unsteady hands, but it has limitations in what it can correct.
    The feature is implemented more in longer lenses than in shorter focal length ones.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks.
    I can get the 18-55 VR II with the 70-300 non VR
    for roughly the same price as the
    18-55 non VR with the 55-200 VR

    which would und be the better one to start with? the 200?

  5. #5
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,879
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A VR version would be more useful - and sensible, IMO - to have in any longer lens you choose.

    - - - Updated - - -

    PS: The 70-300 non-VR has a little extra focal length (FL) and a so-called "macro: reproduction of 1:2.
    That means that the image you get on the sensor will be 1/2 (half) actual subject size. HOWEVER, two things:
    1) I don't know how good the image will be;
    2) Being non-VR, you will lose some steadying function at that rather large reproduction size.

    The 2nd point above is because the lens uses full zoom mode to achieve the "macro" function. Equally, the lens
    would have to be steadily held at normal full zoom (or any sizeable fraction thereof). It's NOT impossible though,
    so it comes down to whether you consider FL and "macro" to be more important than VR. I'm not saying either way.
    Last edited by ameerat42; 21-11-2015 at 7:54pm.

  6. #6
    Perpetually Bewildered fillum's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,119
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Firstly, avoid the 70-300mm non-VR - it doesn't have a good reputation but more importantly I don't think it will autofocus on a D3200. Check the exact model designation - if it says "AF" (and not "AF-S") it won't autofocus on a D3000-series (or D5000-series) body. The Nikkor lenses you want (assuming you want autofocus) should all have an "AF-S" designation. (The "S" in "AF-S" stands for [I think] "Silent Wave Motor" which means there is a focus drive motor built inside the lens. "AF" lenses don't have a focus motor in the lens and require (for autofocus) a focus motor in the camera body, which the D3200 doesn't have). From memory, Sigma use "HSM" (Hyper Sonic Motor) to indicate a focus motor in the lens. I don't recall Tamron having a specific designation, although that may have changed - you would need to check the detailed lens specs in the case of Tamron.

    My approach, like Rick said, would be to get the best kit deal I could with the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm (or 55-300mm if not too much more). Typically these lenses are only a few hundred dollars more than the body when bought as a kit, so even if you upgrade after only 12 months your average cost is only a few dollars per week over that time. Alternatively if you find photography is not for you, then you haven't sunk a huge amount into gear. For me VR on the 18-55mm is not so important, but if it's not a huge amount extra for the VR version I'd go for it. However I would want VR on the telephoto lens (either version). (I wasn't aware of a non-VR 55-300mm, are you sure that is correct?). And it pays to shop around as prices can vary significantly.

    Also check out prices for the D3300. There is currently a $100 cashback from Nikon although I assume this is only for purchases from authorised resellers (which are typically more expensive than other sources). If you are in a position to buy now, keep an eye on prices next Friday and Monday (27th & 30th). These are big shopping days in the US ('Black Friday' & 'Cyber Monday') and (from memory) some local sellers have previously had sales at the same time.

    If you are looking for a higher quality telephoto zoom than the kit ones, the Nikkor 70-300mm VR has a reputation as a good 'bang-per-buck' option (not specifically because of the VR but because it's a better designed and built lens than the older non-VR versions). However the cost here may be prohibitive (70-300mm is $500+) although you may be able to negotiate some savings if bought at the same time as the camera. Third party manufacturers may also offer 70-300's which might out-perform the kit Nikkors but I'm not familiar with them.

    Don't forget to allow some budget for storage media (and maybe a bag, tripod, etc)...





    Cheers.
    Phil.

    Some Nikon stuff. I shoot Mirrorless and Mirrorlessless.


  7. #7
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    4,562
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All good advice, particularly in reference to VR on the longer lens.

    Have a look at this site ..... http://stores.ebay.com.au/nofrillssy...4.l1513&_pgn=3

    This is Ryda.com's eBay site where they sell Nikon refurbished gear with full Australian Nikon warranty. I've bought my last two cameras from Ryda so can give them a
    Cheers
    Kev

    D800 & GAS

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks guys, just double checked in reference to the 55-300 it doesn't say on the net but they sell th VR by its self. Would have to double check in store when I go to make the purchase.

    If it turns out th be VR and the difference is $100 between the 200 and 300, which is a better lens? The $100 doesn't bother me, I just want the better one.

    Is the 3200 a good starting point? From what I've read it seems to be but unsure if I was reading old reviews, is there a better starting point now?

    is a tripod a must? I never really thought of one. Guessing it's better for beginners that don't have a steady hand yet?

  9. #9
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,141
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sargee225 View Post
    Thanks guys, just double checked in reference to the 55-300 it doesn't say on the net but they sell th VR by its self. Would have to double check in store when I go to make the purchase.

    If it turns out th be VR and the difference is $100 between the 200 and 300, which is a better lens? The $100 doesn't bother me, I just want the better one.

    Is the 3200 a good starting point? From what I've read it seems to be but unsure if I was reading old reviews, is there a better starting point now?

    is a tripod a must? I never really thought of one. Guessing it's better for beginners that don't have a steady hand yet?
    If you are into landscapes a tripod can be a great tool. The best time of day for landscapes and seascapes etc us dawn and dusk. Thus the light levels are low and a tripod is something you will use to take those 2-3 second shots (or longer). That milky smooth water effect you often see is done with slow shutter speeds, and your camera needs to not move at all during the time needed to take the shot. So depending on how much you want to get into land/sea scapes then depends how soon you need a tripod

  10. #10
    Member sanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Dec 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    242
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was in the same boat as you about 12 months ago after obtaining a D3100 + 18-55 kit lens and borrowing a 55-200. Basically I didn't have a clue with anything to do with DSLR's and lenses.
    I'm still using the same setup and my photos have improved a lot due to gaining knowledge here and other places + a good DSLR course....WEA here in Adelaide.
    Even after 12 months I'm still fiddling around and finding new stuff in the camera and not ready yet to jump into new stuff just yet, but when I do I'll have a much better idea of what I want.
    I use a tripod alot....just an ebay cheapie but more than adequate to see what a difference they make.
    So in short what Ricktas says is spot on.

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Great explanation, I'll add tripod to my list

  12. #12
    Member bconolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Regarding the 55-200 / 55-300 question, basically the performance between the two is identical up to 200mm. The 55-300's image quality drops between 200-300mm to the point of being quite poor. Personally I'd save the $100 and pick up or put it toward the tripod as recommended.

    Brenden


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Olympus OM-D EM-1, 12-40mm f2.8, 45mm f1.8, Panny 25mm f1.7

  13. #13
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cheers

    I think I'm leaning towards the d3300 with kit lens 18 55 VR II and 55-200 VR II
    with tripod

  14. #14
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,141
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sargee225 View Post
    Cheers

    I think I'm leaning towards the d3300 with kit lens 18 55 VR II and 55-200 VR II
    with tripod
    Whatever you get, enjoy it, learn it, and with hard work and lots of knowledge absorption, you will go through the beginner stage reasonably fast and be onto great photos within a few months. Stick around cause you will learn a damn lot from the members here.

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    18 Aug 2010
    Location
    shepparton
    Posts
    2,682
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    just a bit of advice before getting the buying bug, sit back a couple of months checking your passion for photography and make sure you want to stick to it. once you buy the glass you want and you want to offload it because your passion has gone you will lose a considerable amount on resale
    cheers macca

  16. #16
    Member richardb's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 May 2010
    Location
    Nordrhein Westfalen
    Posts
    410
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One lens is enough, so one can play endlessly with one body and one lens. Fix focus or zoom.
    One should fiddle day in day out with that camera. Every exposure should end up perfect with the minimal of tools. Later on one can go wild on equipment.

  17. #17
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cheers guys
    Ended up getting the D3300 with 18-55 vr ii and the 55-300vr seperatly.
    Ended up being cheaper for me to buy the 3300 than the 3200 thanks to the $100 cashback from Nikon.

    thanks for all the advice

  18. #18
    Ausphotography Regular thegrump's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jul 2015
    Location
    Greensborough
    Posts
    1,270
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I keep coming back to this. bconolly...."Regarding the 55-200 / 55-300 question, basically the performance between the two is identical up to 200mm. The 55-300's image quality drops between 200-300mm to the point of being quite poor. Personally I'd save the $100 and pick up or put it toward the tripod as recommended." image quality drops between 200-300mm
    I have my 18-55 and 55-200. In a few words what would you recommend I try to obtain next, with a 0 budget.
    I have been taking photos for 50 years. I am now trying to get into Photography


  19. #19
    Member bconolly's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thegrump View Post
    I keep coming back to this. bconolly...."Regarding the 55-200 / 55-300 question, basically the performance between the two is identical up to 200mm. The 55-300's image quality drops between 200-300mm to the point of being quite poor. Personally I'd save the $100 and pick up or put it toward the tripod as recommended." image quality drops between 200-300mm
    I have my 18-55 and 55-200. In a few words what would you recommend I try to obtain next, with a 0 budget.
    Well, with 0 budget it's going to be tough ;-) If you're not worried about the slight gap in focal length coverage I can highly recommend the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Outstanding lens for a reasonable price (generally about $400 second hand and under $600 new). You should be able to offload your 55-200 for $200-300 depending on where / how. On crop sensor cameras the 70-300 is absolutely outstanding across most of the focal length. It gets a little soft right out at the 300mm end, but nothing to be too concerned about.

    HTH's!

    Brenden

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Jun 2011
    Location
    Mullaloo
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Does anyone have model of a 400mm lens that would suit Nikon D90? Just standard not prime.
    Graeme

    Nikon D90,Nikon 50mm f1.8D, Nikon 18-105 f3.5-5.6VR, Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6Di VC,Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX, Benro A2692TB1S tripod

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •