Allround telephoto zoom for beginners

prakhardeep · Jun 16, 2011

Hi,

I have a D5100 with 18-55 kit lens and AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G (i LOVE it :hug:

.

I need a telephoto zoom lens for all-round shooting which includes nature, portraits, very occasional wildlife, etc. I need a lens which can do me good in as many situations as possible it's something like Jack of all trades master of none. I would like to keep it/not buy any other telephoto zoom for next few years. So, it should be such that can serve me for this time.

I have shortlisted following three which come under my range (financially):

1. Nikon AF-S DX VR 55-200
2. Nikon AF-S DX VRII 55-300 -> front element rotates which zooming

3. Nikon AF-S VRII 70-300

Please advice which one should i pick up.

Thanks a lot.

Derrel · Jun 16, 2011

#3 is the "best" lens, optically,and is the one I would wish to own. Then #2, which would be handy. Finally, the lowest lens is #1. I have shot the 55-200 VR a fair bit...I was not that impressed with the way it performed, at least on the lower-end Nikon I used it on, which was the D40. I thought it got confused when autofocusing too frequently for the bright, Hawaii light in which I shot it.

prakhardeep · Jun 16, 2011

Thanks Derrel.

One more advise please, out of 35mm and 70-200 which one should i use for good portraits ? or do i need to buy a new lens for it ? I am not looking for pro level portraits for publishing but something like i can click my family members, take a decent size print say 12x16, put it on my walls and be happy ever after !!!

VoidnNull · Jun 16, 2011

You might want to consider the 18-200mm VR lens instead. It has more versatility as it also includes wide angle capability. Both the 55-200mm and 70-300mm are great lens. The 55-300mm might not be that great for wildlife with it's slow auto focusing. You should check out the reviews of each lens over at kenrockwell.com.

The 35mm is a better portrait lens. The f/1.8 can produce some nice bokeh.

prakhardeep · Jun 16, 2011

VoidnNull said:
You might want to consider the 18-200mm VR lens instead. It has more versatility as it also includes wide angle capability. Both the 55-200mm and 70-300mm are great lens. The 55-300mm might not be that great for wildlife with it's slow auto focusing. You should check out the reviews of each lens over at kenrockwell.com.

Thanks Void, but at my place 18-200 comes for double the price of 70-300, sorry i don't have that much money to spend on lens..!!

tyler_h · Jun 16, 2011

Superzooms are heavily comprimised. You already have the 35 1.8 and the 18-55 so don't overlap that and compromise quality in the range you need.

For portraits typical considerations are (in 35mm equiv):
~35 for larger group shots
~50 for small groups and individual shots
~85/135/200 for individual portraits

Wildlife you essentially want longer as better so 300 vs 200 (450 vs 300) is a significant consideration there.

Don't know a lot on the Nikon lineup but if you want it to last a few years I'd suggest having the willingness to spend a little more so you have a tool which is of good build quality and more pleasant to use (if say the rotating front element would be annoying etc).

prakhardeep · Jun 16, 2011

You already have the 35 1.8 and the 18-55 so don't overlap that and compromise quality in the range you need.

So by this i understand that i should not be looking for 18-200 (i couldn't have got it, even if i looked).

For portraits typical considerations are (in 35mm equiv):
~35 for larger group shots
~50 for small groups and individual shots
~85/135/200 for individual portraits

Since, 35mm DX-> 50mm (35mm equivalent) so i am covered for small groups and individual shots.
For, individual portraits i need 85/135/200, that i think 70-200 can cover as it becomes 105-450 on D5100.

Don't know a lot on the Nikon lineup but if you want it to last a few years I'd suggest having the willingness to spend a little more so you have a tool which is of good build quality and more pleasant to use (if say the rotating front element would be annoying etc).

I think, this is pointing me to 70-200 !!!

VoidnNull · Jun 16, 2011

Ahh, sorry about that. When I google the price, they had it listed for $650 even though none of the retailer sold it for that lol.

tyler_h · Jun 16, 2011

Yeah, 70-200 is good for portraits as long as you have space. I've shot in a park with only a 100 (160 equiv.) and that results in standing ~14 metres away for a full body portrait so a bit weird lol.

I'm one to believe in investing a little more in something that will last longer and that you will enjoy using as opposed to the cheapest option. As you have said wildlife is a lower priority 200 at the long end should be fine.

Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 f/4 that I know of which would probably be most what you are after; wouldn't the f/2.8 be out of your price range significantly? or are you just refering to thinking the 70-200 range on the 70-300 would be your most useful?

prakhardeep · Jun 16, 2011

tyler_h said:
Yeah, 70-200 is good for portraits as long as you have space. I've shot in a park with only a 100 (160 equiv.) and that results in standing ~14 metres away for a full body portrait so a bit weird lol.

I'm one to believe in investing a little more in something that will last longer and that you will enjoy using as opposed to the cheapest option. As you have said wildlife is a lower priority 200 at the long end should be fine.

Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 f/4 that I know of which would probably be most what you are after; wouldn't the f/2.8 be out of your price range significantly? or are you just refering to thinking the 70-200 range on the 70-300 would be your most useful?

Nikon has a 70-200 f/2.8 which is currently hitting 2,499 USD at Adorama..LOL

Yes, i am looking more towards the 70-200 range of 70-300 as this is where it is reviewed to be best. That is why i am confusing it with 55-200.

I was also thinking that 55-200 will give me the 55-70 range for portrait but i believe that is not much of a range as i can move a few steps back to compensate that !!! As i am more interested in waist and above portraits then the full body ones. if however, i do really miss that range due to distance issues, i have my eye on Nikon AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8, but that is not an immediate requirement.

VoidnNull · Jun 16, 2011

Could just get a 50mm f/1.8D to fill in the 50-70mm range. That's only about $100.

prakhardeep · Jun 16, 2011

VoidnNull said:
Could just get a 50mm f/1.8D. That's only about $100.

Yep, but that won't auto-focus on D5100. We also have the autofucus model for $200. But, since i have a 35mm f/1.8 i was thinking about the 60mm, one another advantage with 60mm is that it is macro so it will also fulfill my close up shooting needs. But that is later, maybe by Christmas/new year...!!!

Dao · Jun 16, 2011

Another non-Nikon brand lens that also worth a look.
The Tamron 70-300mm VC lens. This lens has build-in ultrasonic motor as well so it will work with baby Nikons.

Photozone review on cropped body.
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD (EOS) - APS-C Format Review / Lab Test

This photo is taken with the Tamron lens on a cropped Canon body.
300mm f/5.6 1/400 ISO200

subscuck · Jun 16, 2011

I agree with Dao. If you're willing to look outside of Nikon's line up, Sigma and Tamron, and Tokina to a lesser extent, all make some very nice glass for less money than their Nikon equivalents. It's definately something to consider.

bigheadkyle2 · Jun 16, 2011

Sigma makes a 70-300 that is only $359.00. It doesn't have a fixed aperture which is kind of a buzz kill but it will be the first big zoom lens I buy when I get dat cheddah(or whatever the kids are saying now days). Here are some sample images of it in use.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DG Macro Lens Sample Photos and Specifications