Lens recommendation

[Turkish]

Any suggestions for a decent lens in the 70-300mm ish range in Nikon fitment?

It's for my D3000 so will need the focus motor onboard. It'd be the budget end of things I'm looking at so I know it won't be an overly fast lens nor sharp through it's full focal length so I'm just after an acceptable or least horrible option.

 

[JamesBryan]

Niall97 on here has a 70-200/300 (can't remember which it is).

Decent lens and fairly cheap too. Might want to message him.

 

[Vish]

Sigma APO.

 

[Hixle]

Can you cope with less range mate? I've always found the Nikon 55-200 to be fairly good for a cheaper lens. Just not great in low light, but sharp enough.

 

[Turkish]

I know they'll all be a bit crap in low light unless you spend a fair few hundred. I used a mates (Tamron IIRC) 70-300 and it was pretty handy, wasn't sure if a 200 would be a little lacking in some situations. What sort of shooting do you use the 200 for?

 

[Hixle]

I've not used it for a while tbh chap, but a bit of everything. Mainly car stuff tbh, but always find it handy there for a 'just in case' moment.

Few snaps @ 200mm:

IIRC you're not a million miles away from me, so if you ever want to try it out before buying just give me a shout.

It's a nice lens for the price imo, found it far nicer to use and sharper than the sigma 70-300. All depends how much you need that extra focal length.

 

[Niall]

Yeah as James said, I have the 55-200mm VR by Nikon, but I’m going to get the Tamron 70-300mm VC when I have enough money, its just as good as the Nikon version and £100 cheaper, so take a look at that

But bare in mind the 55-200 VR is about the £140 mark, whereas the Tamron 70-300 VC is £300, so you need to decide if you want to spend the extra money on 100mm more reach and comparable performance.

 

[Turkish]

55-200 Nikon sounds like it may be the way to go then, the shots you've posted Luke what sort of distance from the track were you? Tbh that's the type of situation I'd be using the far end of the focal length for hence toying with a 70-300, I wasn't sure the 55-200 would quite have enough of a zoom. Appreciate the offer of a loan but as Reading is about an hour-ish from me it's a bit of a drive to be workable.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

Just FYI, even with press passes, quite often 200mm isn't enough for me. But then I'm on full frame, so its a 'real' 200mm. If you're on a cropped sensor, 200mm (300mm) should be enough I think. A 300mm (450mm) focal length is pretty long, and I guess the lens wouldn't have a very large max aperture either which won't help.

Personally, I'd go for a better quality 200mm max lens, rather than cheaper 300mm.

All depends on what you want to do with it too though.

 

[Jonny1*2]

I got the nikkor 70-300mm on my d7000, so as Dan mentioned its effectively 105-450mm on a dx camera. It's a good lense, but trying to get a decent shot at 300mm is hard without a pod from what I've found. Depends what you're shooing though

 

[Brazo]

Tamron 70-300 usd here, good, sharp but slow at 5.6 on the long end.

 

[dunganick]

Being on Nikon, you have a very limited 'pro sumer' range of lenses (which is where Canon is still ahead). So your options are really limited to a used 70-200 2.8 VR1. Moving away from Nikon i would look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS (the new OS version is meant to be optically superior) or the 100-300 F4 (Still miss this lens).

A friend has a Nikon 28-300 and it is very impressive. But ultimately it is a good amateur lens and doesn't have the large aperture that is such a useful feature. Also bare in mind that all of the lenses i mentioned above can be tele-converted, where as i don't think you can TC a 28-300 on Nikon (you certain cant on Canon)

 

[Turkish]

F2.8?!! I'm guessing either you glossed over my question in the OP or your idea of a budget lens is wildly different to mine, lol

 

[dunganick]

F2.8?!! I'm guessing either you glossed over my question in the OP or your idea of a budget lens is wildly different to mine, lol

You asked for a decent lens in your first line. No point buying a rubbish lens - they dont hold used value well so you will loose money when you eventually sell it to buy a decent one.

A used Sigma 70-200 2.8 (non OS) or Sigma 100-300 F4 can be had for sub £400. If you decide you dont like the focal length or need cash then you can sell it used for the same price you bought it (assuming condition remains).

 

[Turkish]

I also used the word budget and I also point out that I have a D3000. Seeing as that was obviously lost on you I'll clarify, I'm not a pro I'm not even a prolific amateur I'm very much at the starting out point and I don't see the point in spending more than the value of my camera body on one piece of glass when I don't shoot enough to warrant it and have other hobbies that consume my "disposable" "toy" income.

Thanks for all the advice/suggestions.

 

[JJ!]

Nikon 70-300 VR - great lens, VR works well even at 300mm, but is expensive - £405

Nikon 55-300 VR - again a very good lens, not quite the quality of the 70-300 but good all the same - £228.80

The 55-200VR is a great cheap lens if you dont mind dropping focal length - £137.50

 

[Jonny1*2]

Nikon 70-300 VR - great lens, VR works well even at 300mm, but is expensive - £300 on eBay

Nikon 55-300 VR - again a very good lens, not quite the quality of the 70-300 but good all the same - £228.80

The 55-200VR is a great cheap lens if you dont mind dropping focal length - £137.50

 

[dunganick]

I also used the word budget and I also point out that I have a D3000. Seeing as that was obviously lost on you I'll clarify, I'm not a pro I'm not even a prolific amateur I'm very much at the starting out point and I don't see the point in spending more than the value of my camera body on one piece of glass when I don't shoot enough to warrant it and have other hobbies that consume my "disposable" "toy" income.

Thanks for all the advice/suggestions.

This i appreciate. And yes you are at the starting point, but the suggestions i have made in the latter post are not that much more expensive than the other options in say the above thread. And in my experience (being someone that was once a complete amateur too) if you buy cheap you will buy twice (and basically recoup next to nothing from cheap glass). Buying used semi decent glass, they wont loose value and if you decide this hobby is not for you, you can sell them for cost (doesnt get cheaper than that). Spending more on glass than your body is the correct ratio. Bodies are cheap and very much less to do with the quality of image you produce when compared to the glass.

When it comes to the AF/AF-s Issue, sorry i dont know if these lenses are compatible.]

If you're determined to buy cheap glass then go for it but at least buy used so you're not just chucking money away. Use Talkphotography as a resource for buying used glass.

 

[Niall]

I’d just buy the 55-200 VR, at £140 it’s a bargain for the performance, unless you shoot a lot of sport or whatever its not worth the extra money.

If you decide photography is for you then move on to better glass, and even if you got no money for the 55-200 when you sell it its hardly going to hurt seems as it’s so cheap to start with.

 

[Brazo]

Si these are 'grey' imports but i've just bought my SONY RX100 from them, no issues and theres no customs charges to pay either.

This is what CK has its very sharp at 200mm and very usable at 300mm http://panamoz.com/index.php/lens/nikon.html?p=5

this is £70 cheaper and if i'm being honest having compared the two I think they are identical lenses but rebranded http://panamoz.com/index.php/lens/t...vc-usd-a005e-for-canon-nikon-camera-fits.html

 

[Niall]

^that is a good lens, I’m considering it for my next purchase.

 

[guysy]

Haven't read the thread but I saw this the other day:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/nikon-af-s-55-200mm-f-4-0-5-6g-ed-dx-vr-lens-113-digitalrev-1334067

Apparently Digital rev is grey imports but some people recommend them.

Another link posted in that thread was a UK seller:

http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewProdDetails.asp?prod_code=PON11E000160

I might purchase one around Christmas time if the reviews turn out ok, haven't looked in to it yet.

 

[Jonny1*2]

This i appreciate. And yes you are at the starting point, but the suggestions i have made in the latter post are not that much more expensive than the other options in say the above thread. And in my experience (being someone that was once a complete amateur too) if you buy cheap you will buy twice (and basically recoup next to nothing from cheap glass). Buying used semi decent glass, they wont loose value and if you decide this hobby is not for you, you can sell them for cost (doesnt get cheaper than that). Spending more on glass than your body is the correct ratio. Bodies are cheap and very much less to do with the quality of image you produce when compared to the glass.

When it comes to the AF/AF-s Issue, sorry i dont know if these lenses are compatible.]

If you're determined to buy cheap glass then go for it but at least buy used so you're not just chucking money away. Use Talkphotography as a resource for buying used glass.

This tbh. Granted you need the money to buy them in the first place, but second hand is the way to go. Only 1 of my lenses is new (35mm 1.8) because second hand it made little to no difference. I just bought a 28-70mm 2.8 nikkor, which is an old lense now and had been superseded by the 24-70mm but still goes for £500. I won't lose on it, so it's like free renting one thing to remember with decent glass is that the weight increases substantially. I've had the 55-200mm and its decent, but the 70-300mm is better, but much bigger and heavier. As a walk around lense the 55-200mm is good weight and its a dx lense. 70-300mm is not dx so less useful to walk around with. Have uou thought about the 18-200mm? Another good dx lense, and second hand you can get hold of one relatively cheap as long as its vr1.

Some food for thought.

 

[Turkish]

This thread has complicated matters by adding countless price points, focal lengths etc lol

 

[Jonny1*2]

Sorry mate. These things aren't black an white unfortunately