I'm looking at getting a new zoom for Christmas and I'm torn between the Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX or the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II. They also make a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S, but I had sticker shock when I saw the price.
I currently have an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm and find I'm switching lenses a lot and want a little bit further range as well. It'll be used almost exclusively for field work shooting wildlife and such.
For those who use zooms a lot which do you think would be most practical.
Thanks.
Cheers.
Jim
Need help choosing a zoom lens
-
DelawareJim
- Posts: 1249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:25 pm
- Real Name: Jim Michaels
- Location: Southeast PA
You asked the impossible question! Obviously, if money wasn't a factor, the 28-300mm is the best lens of the three, but I presume it's also heavier and bulkier than the other two. You'll have to define "practical" a little bit better. I'm not that familiar with the Nikon lineup, but I have a big Canon zoom (100-400) and have gotten some great shots with it, but have also left it at home on more than one occasion because it's a pain to lug around.
So, between the two first ones, what kind of wildlife are you aiming on shooting? In truth, 200mm probably won't give you the reach you're looking for for any smaller animals (birds, butter flies, etc...), even with the 1.6X multiplier that I bet your cameras sensor gives you. The benefit though, is that a 200mm can make a nice portrait lens.
I'd say, go to your local photo store and try out the 55-300mm. If you're happy with the quality the glass produces, go with that. You won't be able to shoot as fast as you would with a F3.5 lens, but it's likely going to fit in your bag easier, and weigh less on your shoulder. Of course, if you're not happy with the pictures from the 55-300mm, and want to shoot wildlife, I'd take a look at the big 300mm+ lenses. And I should mention, that the bigger the lens, the more important that you have a quality tripod to stabilize it.
Bald Eagle, Juneau, AK by guitar fish, on Flickr
So, between the two first ones, what kind of wildlife are you aiming on shooting? In truth, 200mm probably won't give you the reach you're looking for for any smaller animals (birds, butter flies, etc...), even with the 1.6X multiplier that I bet your cameras sensor gives you. The benefit though, is that a 200mm can make a nice portrait lens.
I'd say, go to your local photo store and try out the 55-300mm. If you're happy with the quality the glass produces, go with that. You won't be able to shoot as fast as you would with a F3.5 lens, but it's likely going to fit in your bag easier, and weigh less on your shoulder. Of course, if you're not happy with the pictures from the 55-300mm, and want to shoot wildlife, I'd take a look at the big 300mm+ lenses. And I should mention, that the bigger the lens, the more important that you have a quality tripod to stabilize it.
Bald Eagle, Juneau, AK by guitar fish, on Flickr
-
DelawareJim
- Posts: 1249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:25 pm
- Real Name: Jim Michaels
- Location: Southeast PA
Thanks Kris. Love the eagle! I take it that was your 100-400mm?
You've basically confirmed my thoughts/fears.
And I may have to bite the bullet and go with the 28-300mm. I know "practical" is difficult to qualtify. My basic concern is that I don't want to go from a situation where I have 2 lenses that I use about 50:50 to 3 lenses that I use about 30:30:30 and constantly swapping one more lens; if that makes any sense. I'd like to go with 3 lenses where I'm using them more like 60:20:20? And the 28-300mm seems to fit the bill.
I know it all depends on what I'm shooting ectetera. It is mostly smaller animals while we're out hiking and animals at greater distances which is making me think now that instead of going with a 28-300mm that maybe I should go with something with more reach like a 200-400mm and not have any lens overlap.
Then comes the tripod as you mentioned. I have an average one I use in the house, but I know it won't hold up in the field like maybe a Manfrotto. What do you use?
Cheers.
Jim
You've basically confirmed my thoughts/fears.
And I may have to bite the bullet and go with the 28-300mm. I know "practical" is difficult to qualtify. My basic concern is that I don't want to go from a situation where I have 2 lenses that I use about 50:50 to 3 lenses that I use about 30:30:30 and constantly swapping one more lens; if that makes any sense. I'd like to go with 3 lenses where I'm using them more like 60:20:20? And the 28-300mm seems to fit the bill.I know it all depends on what I'm shooting ectetera. It is mostly smaller animals while we're out hiking and animals at greater distances which is making me think now that instead of going with a 28-300mm that maybe I should go with something with more reach like a 200-400mm and not have any lens overlap.
Then comes the tripod as you mentioned. I have an average one I use in the house, but I know it won't hold up in the field like maybe a Manfrotto. What do you use?
Cheers.
Jim
-
DelawareJim
- Posts: 1249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:25 pm
- Real Name: Jim Michaels
- Location: Southeast PA
Bahahahaha!!! I'm so funny! I just looked at 200-400mm lenses. They're over $6,000!DelawareJim wrote:maybe I should go with something with more reach like a 200-400mm and not have any lens overlap.
So I guess I'm back to the 28-300mm or maybe the 80-400mm.
Get a 200-400mm lens. I just kill myself sometimes.
Cheers.
Jim
If you are going long you are going to drop some cash. At least for a good quality lens. I have a 70-200 canon that I really like, but there are times where I wish I had a little more reach. Esp. for birds and smaller animals. Im not familiar with Nikon's offerings but you may save a little money with a Sigma lens. I have a 17-70 from them and its a great lens. They recently released a 70-200 that is around 1000.00 if I recall. Something I would also suggest is to rent the lens you think you want and test it out for a week. It may cost you 100-150 to rent the lens but at least you know what you are getting and if its the right fit for you.
You might like this one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 ... EX_DG.html
LOL
You might like this one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 ... EX_DG.html
LOL
Jeff U.
Here are some that I found.
Canon makes a lens similar to this that is rated well, may be worth taking a look at
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/7 ... _5_6G.html
Something else to consider is you are probably going to want a lens of that length with image stabilization. That or course is going to also add to the price.
Canon makes a lens similar to this that is rated well, may be worth taking a look at
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/7 ... _5_6G.html
Something else to consider is you are probably going to want a lens of that length with image stabilization. That or course is going to also add to the price.
Jeff U.
-
DelawareJim
- Posts: 1249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:25 pm
- Real Name: Jim Michaels
- Location: Southeast PA
Ha! When I showed the lens to Marlene she laughed and said she knows what to use her bonus cheque on.Jeff120 wrote:If you are going long you are going to drop some cash. At least for a good quality lens. I have a 70-200 canon that I really like, but there are times where I wish I had a little more reach. Esp. for birds and smaller animals. Im not familiar with Nikon's offerings but you may save a little money with a Sigma lens. I have a 17-70 from them and its a great lens. They recently released a 70-200 that is around 1000.00 if I recall. Something I would also suggest is to rent the lens you think you want and test it out for a week. It may cost you 100-150 to rent the lens but at least you know what you are getting and if its the right fit for you.
You might like this one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 ... EX_DG.html
LOL
$29,000 for a lens? I didn't know that was even possible.Cheers.
Jim
-
marydotson
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:43 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Jim,
I've had the Nikkor 18-200 VR lens since it came out (I think in 2006). It's a fabulous lens-I really recommend it highly. It has a range that makes it a fantastic primary lens. It has really great image stabilization (that's what VR stands for, fwiw). It has enormous range. It's saved my button many shots--it goes from macro to telephoto in a mere lens twist. It's exceptionally manageable for carrying--the camera won't tip over when hanging on your neck. All in all, it is exceptionally versatile, outstanding for most requirements and no noticeable distortion.
That said, I've had some minor issues. I have an older frame (D70) and the electronics in the camera can get pokey when responding to the much faster focusing system in the lens--though this is really a camera, not lens issue. For me, the biggest trade off is that the optics necessary to keep it small & portable also keeps it very short, even at high zoom--so bokeh is more limited than with conventional telephoto lenses.
However, for most of my use, this lens is perfect. I hope to upgrade the camera frame, so it will be even better. Kris is right--it isn't super zoom, but that really isn't a big issue to me (I have a rather old 300mm long telephoto which I rarely use, except when I do event photography). The thing is this lens that stays on my camera day to day--and when I need to get a telephoto, it does pretty good--and also does closeup as well. It does great for general portraiture as well. When I get the itch for bokeh--I just rent really expensive specialist lenses that I wouldn't ever consider buying.
Mary
I've had the Nikkor 18-200 VR lens since it came out (I think in 2006). It's a fabulous lens-I really recommend it highly. It has a range that makes it a fantastic primary lens. It has really great image stabilization (that's what VR stands for, fwiw). It has enormous range. It's saved my button many shots--it goes from macro to telephoto in a mere lens twist. It's exceptionally manageable for carrying--the camera won't tip over when hanging on your neck. All in all, it is exceptionally versatile, outstanding for most requirements and no noticeable distortion.
That said, I've had some minor issues. I have an older frame (D70) and the electronics in the camera can get pokey when responding to the much faster focusing system in the lens--though this is really a camera, not lens issue. For me, the biggest trade off is that the optics necessary to keep it small & portable also keeps it very short, even at high zoom--so bokeh is more limited than with conventional telephoto lenses.
However, for most of my use, this lens is perfect. I hope to upgrade the camera frame, so it will be even better. Kris is right--it isn't super zoom, but that really isn't a big issue to me (I have a rather old 300mm long telephoto which I rarely use, except when I do event photography). The thing is this lens that stays on my camera day to day--and when I need to get a telephoto, it does pretty good--and also does closeup as well. It does great for general portraiture as well. When I get the itch for bokeh--I just rent really expensive specialist lenses that I wouldn't ever consider buying.
Mary
-
DonkeyFish
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 4:42 pm
- Real Name: Jen Williams
- Location: Alexandria, VA
- Contact:
-
DelawareJim
- Posts: 1249
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 4:25 pm
- Real Name: Jim Michaels
- Location: Southeast PA
