Camera Lenses

[peanut]

I've just updated my camera, it came with an okay 18-55 VR lens, but also bought a 50mm - f1.8 prime which has certainly put a new slant on things for me in a good way. (Using a Nikon D3200)

I'm looking for a decent but good value zoom, but not sure what to look for. Is there much difference between Nikkor, Tamrons and Sigs?

I have an old non VR 55-200mm which is okay in good light, but better with a tripod obviously. Would VR/VC make a huge difference as cost is a factor but could be a cheap option if it is worth swapping just for the VR alone.

Ideally I'm looking for either a 18-300 or 270mm, 50-300mm or 70-300mm but prices for the 70 seems steep. I've tried looking but can't find anything that stands out for price.

Also what is the best choice for everyday photography, obviously it depends on the situation but what lens do you tend to keep on more than others?

Thanks.

[AbyssUnderground]

I got a 55-300mm from Amazon for £200 and it works a treat for my D3100 but I'm yet to use it for decent pictures (I got it for Silverstone and Le Mans racing pics )

[roger skillin]

Don't get the 70-300mm all 3 makes of that lens aren't very good at all. If you wan't a really nice zoom, get the Sigma 70mm-210mm F2.8 - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SIGMA-70-2...p2054897.l4276,

it's an old lens but brilliant, it auto focuses on my D90 but unfortunately the lower end camera's like the 3200 do not have their own focus motor and rely on the lens having one, this means you would only be able to use manual focus, this isn't an issue for a lot of people but might be for some.

[Nidge41]

Why spend money on lenses when my £80 digital captured this yesterday.



[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[peanut]

Nice pic Nidge.

I think I've made my mind up and going for the 55mm-300mm VR lens as the price is very good at the mo for £170 odd. Based on the reviews it seems the safest bet too.

Obviously I ain't any kind of pro, I just want something that will do what for I need and some, and to have the kit that would cover all needs. It's all just for personal enjoyment to help passing time, I don't need anything that is geared up for the pros. I enjoy the learning curve of photography which is quite steep as I've found out.

As for the D3200 being low end as mentioned, it is compared to pro kit obviously, but it can match and beat the older D90 in many aspects but price has to be key.

[peanut]

Another lens I looked at that is similar to that multiplier is the Raynox 250. Just clip it onto a lens to make it a half decent and cheap (£40) macro lens. Trouble is when looking at the examples online all you get is spiders and I can't bear to look at them so doing research on them is tricky. lol.

[roger skillin]

Originally Posted by Nidge41

Why spend money on lenses when my £80 digital captured this yesterday.

Doesn't look sharp at all to me, the dog looks a little blurred and the sky doesn't have much detail

[peanut]

Originally Posted by roger skillin

Doesn't look sharp at all to me, the dog looks a little blurred and the sky doesn't have much detail

A quick touch up in photoshop or the likes to sharpen slightly, then printed at 6x4 then there wouldn't be that much wrong with it. As he said it's only a £80 snapper. I do agree that the difference are huge compared to other cameras but some people won't agree because of costs, nor notice these differences as long as they are happy.

Saying that I've seen a lot worse snaps on expensive cameras.

[roger skillin]

Originally Posted by peanut

A quick touch up in photoshop or the likes to sharpen slightly, then printed at 6x4 then there wouldn't be that much wrong with it.

Saying that I've seen a lot worse snaps on expensive cameras.

Well anything printed that small would be hard to notice the details anyway.
And yes i agree, most of a good picture is about the photographer, I think that's a good photo but as i'm used to shooting with a DSLR i can see the quality difference but a cheap cam is fine for every day snaps of course

[Nidge41]

Originally Posted by roger skillin

Doesn't look sharp at all to me, the dog looks a little blurred and the sky doesn't have much detail

There wasn't any focus on the camera at all, maybe if I'd zoomed in a little.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by roger skillin

And yes i agree, most of a good picture is about the photographer

True, I've seen some absolutely beautiful photos taken on the relatively low-end cameras used in phones, and some absolutely awful ones taken on a badly set up Canon 5D Mark II.. Of course, I've seen awful ones taken on phone cameras and absolutely stunning photos taken on a 5D as well.

Having said that, when my Nephew was born, I borrowed a Canon 550D with stock lens, and even just on automatic, the photos taken with that were a lot better than those taken with my iPhone 5 (which does have a perfectly good camera for snaps).

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by roger skillin

Don't get the 70-300mm all 3 makes of that lens aren't very good at all.

What do you not like about this lens?
I have the Nikon 70-300 and find it is great.

[Hom3r]

I have a friend how loved his cameras, he as two of the same cameras (£800 each) did say what they where but cannot remember.

Plus one has a lens for normal stuff, and the other has a £3,000 telephoto lens.

I'm happy with my £300 20x optical & 40x digital zoom Lumix DM-TZ40

[haydnwalker]

I would just stay away from the Tamron 70-300, I've got one and I hate it, its loud, slow and awkward. I do like the Nikkor 70-300 and 55-300 though. Both are adequate. I bought myself a 50mm f/1.4 prime... its my favourite lens so far. I REALLY need to swap my Tamron for one of the Nikkor ones.

I'm looking at old low aperture manual lenses now as they are a bit cheaper.

[CycoSymz]

I've got the Tamron 70-300 and it is loud and clunky but for 50 quid from Ebay I can't complain.