Advice on lenses for beginners

[Sargee225]

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

[ricktas]

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.

[ameerat42]

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.

[Sargee225]

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?

[ameerat42]

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.

[fillum]

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.

[Cage]

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

[Sargee225]

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?

[ricktas]

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

[sanger]

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.

[Sargee225]

Great explanation, I'll add tripod to my list

[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.

Brenden


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sargee225]

Cheers

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

[ricktas]

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.

[macmich]

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

[richardb]

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.

[Sargee225]

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

[thegrump]

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.

[bconolly]

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

[graemelee]

Does anyone have model of a 400mm lens that would suit Nikon D90? Just standard not prime.