basically, i have a D3100 with 18-55mm right now. looking for a second lens, but have no idea what one to get, although i do know i want a zoom lens, but i am on a budget, HEEELP?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikkor lens advice..
- Thread starter glittersparkles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Have you considered the 55-200mm VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm
Also, look into Sigma and Tokina lenses because some perform very well.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm
Also, look into Sigma and Tokina lenses because some perform very well.
I'd also recommend the 55-200 - VR version if you can afford it. Review of both versions of the 55-200. I think there's only a $50(US) price difference between the 2 versions.
55-200 VR are plasticky, but cheap and accettable in sharpness compared to rivals in the range. Assuming you don't have to shoot fast, they perform great.
This depends on what you're shooting. Do you miss the >55mm range very often? If so, the 55-200mm is nice for the money(got one myself). If not, I recommend the 35mm f/1.8DX. With this lens you will be able to experiment with wide apertures/narrow depth of field, which is a lot different from your 18-55mm.
Hi
Vote +1 for the 55-200 mm VR f/4-5.6G. Pretty sharp lens and quite cheap. It is not a fast lens so the VR will come in handy (at least for camera shake).
Yeah the build is quite plasticky but it is not flimsy.
You said you were after a zoom so I have assumed you want a long lens as opposed to a wide lens. If you were going wide I would suggest the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (yeah third party but considered by many as better than Nikon's current offer esp for a DX like the D3100). I have used the Tokina with my D90 and it is excellent. This is around $600 though.
If you are going prime then I second the 35 mm. I use one of these now - used to carry a 50 mm prime (1.8D). If you want wide, fast and light this is excellent. (Although if you want a little less wide but still fast, light and sharp the 50 mm is not too shabby either). Up to you whether you want to pay extra to get a bit faster with a f/1.4.
Good luck and happy snapping.
Vote +1 for the 55-200 mm VR f/4-5.6G. Pretty sharp lens and quite cheap. It is not a fast lens so the VR will come in handy (at least for camera shake).
Yeah the build is quite plasticky but it is not flimsy.
You said you were after a zoom so I have assumed you want a long lens as opposed to a wide lens. If you were going wide I would suggest the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (yeah third party but considered by many as better than Nikon's current offer esp for a DX like the D3100). I have used the Tokina with my D90 and it is excellent. This is around $600 though.
If you are going prime then I second the 35 mm. I use one of these now - used to carry a 50 mm prime (1.8D). If you want wide, fast and light this is excellent. (Although if you want a little less wide but still fast, light and sharp the 50 mm is not too shabby either). Up to you whether you want to pay extra to get a bit faster with a f/1.4.
Good luck and happy snapping.
Paul's question is the most important. What do you want to shoot?
The lens that stays on my camera most of the time is the
28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S a full frame lens. I love the versatility
to 
or 
, and it was under $1,000, so it was cheaper than the AF-S NIKKOR
70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II...
The is was one of my first lens purchases, and it was ok, but just did not have the long end, and it is not all that fast....
or 
AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED
Shot at 165 mm F5.3 @ 1/1250
I also have a AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D that shoots great family portraits, low light, night shots, and is just fun to shoot with.
or 
I have had a lot of fun with a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX Zoom Digital Lens for Nikon AF Mount
or 
At 12mm and 
at 24mmor you could go old school and try some manual lens
Lens
Nikkor * ED 300mm 1:4.5 Manual settings F-8 -f10
or 
Lens
Nikkor * ED 300mm 1:4.5 with a Nikon TC-301 2x Teleconverter
well the two lenses i'm deciding between are 55-200mm and 55-300mm; i should've been slightly more specific.. on the whole i want to experiment further with landscapes, particularly city ones, which is why i want the zoom, basically..
If you want landscape, then you want something wider than 55mm since that is 82mm on a DX body. What is your 18-55mm zoom not offering you that you want? Is it reach? If so, get the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
The FIRST step is for you to figure out WHY you need the second lens. Are there some shots that you have missed. Why did you miss them? Was it because there was a fence of some other barrier that kept you from being able to get close enough for a good shot or was it because it was to dark and a flash would not have worked or you needed a wider lens. Was it because you like those shots with a very narrow depth of focal and your f/5.6 lens can't do that.
The first step is to describe the problem. Only then can you find a solution
----------
That is a VERY unusual choice if the subject is a landscape. The "kit" 18-55mm lens is actually not to bad for landscapes and I'd think your next big dollar purchase would be a good tripod.
Had you said "architectural details" then yes a slow tele-zoom can work for that.
The classic landscape lens is a fixed wide angle.
Here is the why to know: Look at your photo library and see what focal lengths are used. If you see that you have the zoom at one or the other end of the scale a lot of the time then get a lens that is either longer or shorter depending on which end of the zoom scale you are bumping into.
For actual landscapes, stick with your wider kit lens. The 55-300mm would be fine for city shots and is a good lens. I have one and it is a great lens as long as you're not using it in low light or for action. The max aperture is terribly slow for low light (unless your subject isn't moving and you have a tripod), especially at 300mm, and the auto focus is terribly slow as well (at least compared to my 70-200mm). If your not shooting action or in low light, then the 55-300mm will work just fine for you. The build quality is also slightly better than that of the 55-200mm (for one, the lens mount is metal as opposed to plastic).
i got a 55-200mm VR II in the end.
Now that you said that, we want proof. Show us some photos.
I'm coming into the thread a bit late (story of my life), but did want to offer up the perspective of using longer lenses in landscapes/cityscapes. The longer lenses have the ability to compress background/foreground components offering a compelling viewpoint and differing levels of detail than you get with a traditional wide angle. You should definitely be able to get some great shots with the 55-200 so have fun!
EDIT: And London is one of my all time favorite cities so you definitely better get busy posting photos
EDIT: And London is one of my all time favorite cities so you definitely better get busy posting photos
Last edited: