Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by almaass, Oct 29, 2009.
I use a D60 with a Nikon 55-200 VR . I want a bigger lense. Suggestions and comments?? Thanks
Based on the information you have given us....THIS is your only viable option.
Ok... so I shoot a lot of landscapes...some kids sporting events etc. I am very new and just enjoy taking pictures. I want to zoom a bit more.
Mike, That's a longer lens, maybe not a bigger one. Filter size for the 600mm lens is still only 52mm.
Sorry, I was just having a little fun at your expense
So you want a longer focal length for more magnification?
What is your budget? As you can see, lenses can get expensive.
Are you OK with the quality of your 55-200mm lens, or do you want something better?
oh my god....i couldnt get it to load the first time and i thought your link was a dead link. that lens is awesome. yes i want that one.....lol.
seriously though, i am learning so a lot you talk about will probably be way over my head. i do like the quality of the pictures with my 55-200. i would definitely like some better quallity if i could get it but not at the price of 11k. i guess my budget is about 500- 1000.00. i have read about tamron and sigma?????? maybe also a lense up to 500???
man if you had that 600mm you could take great shots of babes at the beach...
Landscapes? I think you want to go wide, not long. Be more specific as to your needs. That lens is pretty long on a DX-format camera
If you want much better quality, then I'd suggest looking at the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 (the Nikon version is better, but a lot more expensive). This would be basically the same focal range as your current lens, but with a much larger aperture (a good thing) and better overall quality.
This lens is just over $500. You can get a non VR 70-300mm for much less, but it's not a great lens.
If you want a longer lens, have a look at the Nikon 70-300 VR. From what I've read, it's a pretty good lens...not outstanding but not terrible either.
There is the 300mm F4. Probably an outstanding lens but it's $1400.
(The 300mm F2.8 VR is $5300)
You won't find a *good (or even OK) 500mm lens for a reasonable price.
Oh not that thread again!
Longer than 200? I would advice going into a prime lens (fixed focal length, not a zoom) because to get a good lens that can zoom at that focal length, it will cost a bit more than what someone that just does photography as a hobby is willing to pay (I'm just assuming here). Prime telephoto lenses will have better quality and not cost as much as the zooms. Also, if you're gonna use it for sports photography, you should get a faster lens (has a low minimum F number) unless you only plan on shooting sports outside in bright sunny conditions (take into consideration that some days are cloudy and dark). Faster lenses are better for sports photography because it allows you to shoot at faster shutter speeds, thus allowing you to freeze the action. However, these generally cost a lot more than slower versions.
For landscapes, most go with wide angle lenses, not telephotos. Since you have a 55-200, something in the 17-55 range would complement it nicely.
I have the Sigma 50-500mm that's about $1000 through Adorama. I do mostly kids football games and motorcycle racing and I think it does fairly well. But then again, I'm not a pro.
What is a lense?
Separate names with a comma.