Do I need another lens?

[RandyT]

I have a D5100 with the 18-55 lens and a 55-300 lens.
Question do I have all the lenses that will be needed for animals and landscapes will be what I shooting mostly.

I hear a 55-200 is needed but not sure why

Thanks

[Ads]

[bhop]

If you're happy with what you have, then you don't need anything else. Personally i'd rather have 'better' lenses (quality) but that's a budget issue.

[SCraig]

If the lenses you have provide the reach that you need and the optical speed that you need, then you don't need any others. If they don't then you do.

My 70-300 is too short for a lot of birds and wildlife which is why I have a 150-500mm. Both my 70-300 and 150-500 are overkill for landscapes (which I don't shoot a great deal of) and up close "Stuff" which is why I have a 17-70. These are the 3 that I use the most however they may not be the ones that you need.

[Big Mike]

I personally like to shoot landscapes with a wider lens, something like 10-20mm (on your camera).

Also, both of those lenses are considered 'slow'....meaning that their maximum aperture isn't very big. I'd prefer to have lenses that have a larger maximum aperture, something like F2.8 (for a zoom) or F1.4 (for a prime (non zoom)).

Lastly, neither of those lenses is 'pro quality'. It's hard to explain in a short response, but you might compare these two lenses to something like the 17-55mm F2.8 and the 70-200mm F2.8 VR. Of course, these lenses will cost quite a bit more so they may not be the best option for everyone.

[STM]

I hope I am just not understanding your question because otherwise you are not making any sense.

If you already have a 55-300mm lens, why on earth would you duplicate your lenses and get a 55-200mm? That would be like asking "I already have a 28mm f/2.8 lens but I am thinking of getting a 28mm f/3.5 too because I hear one is needed"

What is your rationale for getting another lens? Faster speed? Lighter weight? Higher quality?

[RandyT]

No the guy at the store suggested the 55-200 Thats why I was asking because it seemed like it was duplicating like you said.

I think I will save for a better quality lens since I pretty much have the reach I need but may check into something for landscapes

[2WheelPhoto]

No the guy at the store suggested the 55-200 Thats why I was asking because it seemed like it was duplicating like you said.

I think I will save for a better quality lens since I pretty much have the reach I need but may check into something for landscapes

Did he know you already have a 55-200? Was this a bestbuy store by chance

[Boyun]

The questions is the animals that you are going to photograph are dangerous animals, such as: lions, tigers, alligators,... Are they behind bars or running free where you stands, or lying down? If they were running free, I would say you need another lens like fish needs water. You will need a super telephoto to keeps the distance.

[RandyT]

it will be for now Buffalo,Deer and other assorted wildlife in Colorado.
Next year Im taking a photo safari trip and will for sure get a super telephoto

[tirediron]

Of course you do... there are lenses out there that you don't have, therefore you need them.

[KmH]

Hopefully you have very good fieldcraft so you can get close enough that 300 mm will provide sufficient image scale you don't have to crop heavily.

Unfortunately, shooting wildlife usually requires more reach than 300 mm provides. I used 500 mm to shoot soccer players at the other end of a scoccer pitch, and often wished I had 600 mm.

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG HSM APO IF Ultra Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

Nikon 600mm f/4.0G ED VR II AF-S SWM Super Telephoto Lens for Nikon FX and DX Format Digital SLR

[shady195]

I'm no pro but..

To get yourself comfortable with the camera, learning some tricks etc the 18-55 should be okay for landscapes for now, up until recentely I was using the 18-105 from my D90 for wide shots at 18MM, and while it did the trick and prodeuced some pretty decent images, I often found myself wishing i had even just 1-2MM more of view and was a bit sharper. Just picked up the 11-16 Tokina

As far as wildlife goes. I can tell you that 300 will make it somewhat difficult at times especially when your talking birds/small animals. If its what you really want to do I'd start saving and get yourself a quality telephoto like KmH posted above. Lenses are not cheap, but they are an investment, and one that properly maintained down the road will allow a decent resale value if you so choose to change your type of photography or downsize in the future