New to the forum and new to Photography

[Pratoman]

I just registered here and am new to photography, beyond my IPhone. I've been wanting to explore PHotography as a hobby for a while and recently was given a Nikon D3200 as a gift. I just started reading and trying to learn. A bit overwhelming so I took a one on one lesson, which helped.

One thing I've realized is that the lens that came with the camera (18-55mm) is quite limiting. With that said, I want to be sure that I will keep an interest in this hobby, before going out and spending crazy money.

What I'd like to do with my camera, I think, is travel, and sports. I'm going on a trip to Alaska in Juky and don't want to squander what could be an amazing photo opportunity. So I've got a steep hill to climb.
Anyway, sorry for the novel, I do have a question....
Thinking I should purchase a telephoto lens. The Nikon 18-200mm is not cheap at $600. At my local camera shop (professional establishment, very knowledgeable photographers, not salesman), I was shown a Tamron 18-270mm, that is $449 (with VR) and Tamron is offering a $100 rebate, so $349. Is there anything wrong with this lens? I'm told it's quite good by the store. But I'm always leery about cheating out.

Any thoughts on this, and any other tips on getting started, appreciated.

 

[Designer]

Welcome!

If 200mm will work for you, why not get one of the 55-200? They're quite affordable.

I don't know what you mean when you say the 18-55 is "limiting". I use that lens more than any other at the present time.

 

[jl1975]

Welcome to the forum.

I would say that before you buy something new, make sure that the new lens will be able to do what your current lens is not. Do you find the focal length the limit of your 18-55? If so, then either the 55-200 or the 18-200 would be potential choices. If, you are limited by the 18-55's aperture and want something faster (f1.8, f2.8) then look at the 35 or 50mm f1.8. New gear is always tempting, but make sure that the shiny new toy you're considering will actually fill a need or overcome a limit that you are actually running into. GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is a common affliction of photography enthusiasts and is hard to control.

 

[Derrel]

18-55 has basically, almost no telephoto reach to speak of, especially in this day and age. You know, the 18-270mm Tamron superzoom for $349 is probably going to be the best ONE-lens zoom you can get for that kind of money...and it has more one-lens versatility than a 55-200. For a trip to Alaska, where you want to see stuff and then shoot it, I think the 18-270mm zoom for $349 is going to offer the most overall, total freedom you can possibly get. Is it the BEST lens available? NO. But will it fill the most shooting situations without a lens change? YES.

The other option is to use the 18-55 for the close-in stuff, then buy a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 VR-G lens, used, or refurbished, for around the $350 mark; sold new, the price is too high, and Nikon has sold a lot of these refurbished, so do not pay more than $349 or so for a 70-300 VR. On photo forums you will encounter mostly people giving advice from the POV that a $2499 70-200 is the best choice, and then a $1699 normal zoom, then a $750 macro lens, and so on.

 

[Microbois]

What I'd like to do with my camera, I think, is travel, and sports.

It might be different for you, but travel photography in my mind is often associated with wide angle lenses for landscape, while sports is pretty much always a telephoto. I'm just raising the point in case you may in fact need 2 different lenses. Derrel has some very good advices. Last thing to mention, if you think you will eventually upgrade to a FX camera, you may want to pick an FX lens, so it will fit on your next camera body.

 

[Pratoman]

Thanks for the responses.
First, excuse my lack of knowledge, but what's an FX lens?

Re all of your comments,....
When I said limiting on the 18-55, I was referring to 2 things. One telephoto range, which I think will be important on a trip like Alaska. Being newb, I may be wrong about that, but it's what my gut tells me. Ill be taking pictures from a cruise ship, and a helicopter, among other spots. Second, it's limiting in its inability to create a shallow depth of field. The gent who is giving me some lessons, showed me some shots that looked very ordinary, but then the same shot using a wider aperture (I think, low number, right? ) and the shots went from ordinary to amazing. I can't do much of that with an 18-55 as it was explained to me , because I need to be able to go to f2 and that lens only goes to f3.6. Now I'm not sure I will need that right away, and I know the 18-270 won't solve that problem. But it's another limit on the 18-55.
the other idea, I think Derrell, of getting a 55-300, is a good one. I thought about that. But I don't think at this stage, I want to be changing lenses,
Like someone said, if I want a one lens solution for now, the Tamron. 18-270 is probably the answer, from what you are saying and what I've heard.

I am guessing that there is a secondary market for these lenses so if my needs change, all is not lost.

I hope I used the right terminology here, I'm just starting to get an understanding of how things work with aperture. I guess my next stop will be shutter speed. Thanks again I'm glad I found this forum.

 

[Designer]

Taking photographs from a moving platform is going to be problematic. The best solution is to make sure the shutter speed is fast enough to limit motion blur.

Of course the 55mm upper end of that lens is not telephoto, but that doesn't mean the lens is at fault. It's just not the lens for the job.

If you are going for a shallow DOF, you have to recognize the respective roles of:

focal length of the lens
aperture of the lens
distance from camera to subject
sensor size

An "FX" lens is designed for the "full size" sensors that are in the pro-level and pro-sumer levels of camera bodies.

Depending on what brand camera, (in Nikon, anyway) FX lenses will mount on the DX bodies, and vice-versa, although the DX lens on an FX body will probably show vignetting.

 

[Microbois]

One telephoto range, which I think will be important on a trip like Alaska. Being newb, I may be wrong about that, but it's what my gut tells me. Ill be taking pictures from a cruise ship, and a helicopter, among other spots.

I don't know if it's just me, but there's no doubt you can make good landscape pictures with a telephoto, but the most impressive ones will come from a wide-angle lens. In general, vast territories, rock formations, mountains, oceans, and such huge structures are more impressive when shot with a wide-angle lens. You might want to think twice about going on a trip without a wide-angle lens. That being said, and I might be very old fashion, but a zoom lens with a ratio of 15 just sound like a pure junk. I know it's very appealing to have a do-it-all lens, but they are the object of so many compromises that their IQ suffers any way you look at it. If you really have to do it, I would recommend the 70-300mm VR. At least it's a FX lens so it will be reusable, and on DX, it should perform well.

If you want to have an idea of what a wide-angle lens can do for you, check out the pictures of ruifo, a regular member here, on Flick : Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f 3.5-4.5G ED Flickr - Photo Sharing He's got some incredible shots. Hopefully he will chime in and add his grain of salt.

Anyway, if I was traveling to Alaska, for sure I would have a wide-angle lens with me long before a telephoto.

 

[Pratoman]

So what makes a wide angle lens? Is it the fact that it goes to 300mm? Or something else.

Remember I'm very new at this, so go easy on me ;-)

Edit: just looked at that link, photos are very impressive. Those are the kinds of pictures that motivate me to learn about this. Thanks.

 

[Microbois]

So what makes a wide angle lens? Is it the fact that it goes to 300mm? Or something else.

Nope, a wide-angle lens will be at the other end of the spectrum. For FX, anything under 35mm is pretty much a wide angle lens. 24mm and 28mm being very common, you do get a more dramatic look between 16mm and 20mm. Under 16mm, you end up into fisheye territory. In DX lenses, just divide those number by 1.5 to get an equivalent. Now, do you see yourself using such lens on a trip?

 

[Pratoman]

So from your description, my kit lens, 18-55mm, AND the tamron 18-270 mm are wide angle since they are both under 35mm? And the 70-300mm lens is not wide angle?

You lost me when you started talking about the DX equivalent. But maybe we shouldn't go there yet, I'm confused enough.

Sorry, thanks for your patience. I probably should be reading a book or two before posting questions.

 

[Designer]

Sorry, thanks for your patience. I probably should be reading a book or two before posting questions.

Don't worry about it. Sure, read, but when you can't understand what is in the book, then ask.

 

[Microbois]

Sorry about the confusion. Your 18-55mm lens is equivalent to about 28-80mm in FX format, so yes, your lens is wide-angle at the 18mm end, but not that much. Anything starting at about 12mm would give you about the same kind of pictures you have seen on the Flick link I gave you earlier. It might be a personal preference you don't share, but I like landscape much better when they are shot with wider wide-angle lenses. If you are going to Alaska, I just can imagine from here how many shots I would do with my 18-35mm FX lens (equivalent to about 12-24mm in DX).

That being said, you didn't explain why you want such a powerful telephoto (aside from sports). Unless you want to shoot animals far on icebergs or on land, there's very little use for it otherwise. If you are too far for a shot, walk to it, don't just zoom in to get it. Also, telephotos compress perspective and everything in between, so if it's a foggy day, or the air is not clear, all this "pollution" will make your pictures not as clear as if you were closer. It's also not easy to shoot hand held with a telephoto, so you'll need a faster shutter speed, but if the lens isn't bright to start with, you'll have to crank up your ISO, and then you get more noise. Telephotos are heavier, bulkier, and the one you are looking at have a zoom ratio of 15, a clear indication that this is a lens full of compromises.

 

[MaryGreen]

and any other tips on getting started, appreciated.

When I became interested in photography I read lots of succesful photograthers' interviews. I should say they helped me greatly. And as Jens Lennartsson said in his interview, which I've found at Turn Your Hobby into Earnings KeepSnap the first thing you should do is to decide what do you want to shoot and why. Following your goals is easier, when you know what your goals are.

 

[raventepes]

Take it from a guy who lives in Alaska...I agree with Derrel completely. Pick up used Nikon 70-300 VR II that's in good shape from a reputable dealer like Keh, Adorama, or B&H Photo. They can often be had for $400 or less. Outside of lenses that cost $1000 or more, it's easily one of the best lenses in its price range.

Outside of the fact that it's variable aperture, I have absolutely no complaints about it. My wife and I each have one.

Not to discourage people who enjoy the convenience of superzooms, but they usually have some pretty pronounced bad optical quality. The Tamron 18-270, while it's decent in terms of superzooms (It's probably the only one I'd personally buy if I needed one for a "pinch" situation) still isn't without significant flaws. The thing with superzooms is that they're very much a trade-off lens. Sacrifice quality for convenience of one lens. For some, that's not an issue, especially if they're good with post-processing. but there's only so much that post-processing can fix. I'd rather start my post-process workflow with decent images from the start, rather than have to work on lens corrections.