Best Nikon lens $150-$200

RMThompson

the TPF moderators rock my world!
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
11
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Ok guys, It's time I get a zoom lens, something that has the uppers in the 200-300 range. Now, I am mostly using it for daytime work, so I am OK with a cheapie one (f.4 - 5.6) but WHICH one? I'd like to also be able to do Macro if that's available, but all the choices are a little confusing.

All I use now is a NIkon 50mm 1.8 and the standard 18-55 (Only when I need a wide lens), so I am scared to go outside of the Nikon name, but if people have some good experiences I can be swayed!

What say you, fellow enthusiast?
 
Frankly speaking... for those guidelines that you are using to determine your budget (daytime... cheapie... 4-5.6 etc.), I don't see where it really matters all that much what you buy. If you are fine with the fact that you only need budget glass, grab a Sigma or Nikkor. I really don't see where it is a big thing either way.

If you were going for higher quality glass (i.e. in the 200 2.8 range), that would open up all kinds of debate; like VR or not, name brand or not... blah, blah, blah.

But this is not that kind of question.

David
 
Frankly speaking... for those guidelines that you are using to determine your budget (daytime... cheapie... 4-5.6 etc.), I don't see where it really matters all that much what you buy. If you are fine with the fact that you only need budget glass, grab a Sigma or Nikkor. I really don't see where it is a big thing either way.

If you were going for higher quality glass (i.e. in the 200 2.8 range), that would open up all kinds of debate; like VR or not, name brand or not... blah, blah, blah.

But this is not that kind of question.

David

Well $200 - $220 isnt out of the question... there are some cheapie VRs for that, but should I get a cheapie 55-200 VR, or a 70-300 Nikon for greater range? Or should I get a Tamron/Sigma one with Macro?

Too confusing! LOL The 50mm 1.8 was a no brainer!
 
I had the 55-200mm VR and took it back a week later. I also hate my 18-55mm and it was a $100 lens. You'll get what you pay for, and below $400 IMHO for a telephoto is junk.
 
Are you looking for more range than you have now?? a longer zoom??. I am not sure where you are going with this As far as lenses go you have the "cheapie" end covered with the "kit" lens you already have if I were you I would stick with that unles you want more zoom. If you do want more zoom I would agree with the long ones that RM has suggested anything else would be a lateral move and a waste of money.
 
I had the 55-200mm VR and took it back a week later. I also hate my 18-55mm and it was a $100 lens. You'll get what you pay for, and below $400 IMHO for a telephoto is junk.

I find it funny that you put a pricetag as your minimum requirement for purchasing a lens. As if after $400 dollars the quality is immediatly improved, just because they charge that much money.

However I do understand your point, that cheap lenses mean cheap quality, but I know I've seen a lot of nice photos taken with a 55-200 or a 70-300.
 
Are you looking for more range than you have now?? a longer zoom??. I am not sure where you are going with this As far as lenses go you have the "cheapie" end covered with the "kit" lens you already have if I were you I would stick with that unles you want more zoom. If you do want more zoom I would agree with the long ones that RM has suggested anything else would be a lateral move and a waste of money.

Well, as stated in my original post, I am looking for something that ends in 200 or 300mm, for longer shots in daylight.

A few times I've wanted to take some pics of nature/ballgames/etc that would require a longer lens but I surely don't have the hundreds and hundreds of dollars required for something like an 18-200 VR lens.

So what I am looking for is one of the following, and was hoping someone could offer advice on the quality of optics of the following:

55-200 Nikkor lens; cheap and sold everywhere.

70-300 Nikon lens; longer range, but does that mean better? I wonder though since with the above lens 100mm would be closer to f5.6 while with this lens it would be closer to the f4... am I wrong there?

My other option is a non Nikon lens that also offers MACRO ability, like the 70-300 with Macro made by Tamron (or is it Sigma)

Any advice would be apprecaited~!
 
I have a 55-200 VR and I like it very much (for what it is), I paid $179 new.

However, if you want the most "bang for the buck" IMHO in inexpensive telephoto lenses that have a halfway decent macro capability, look no further than the Tamron 70-300 LD DI, which can be had for $125 if you find it right...

Fantastic sharp lens for the money, I have literally tens of thousands of pictures with mine, and the image quality is outstanding. It is plastic, the autofocus is kind of noisy and slow, but the Macro is 1:2 and it is sharp as a tack, so who cares for that money.
 
Well, as stated in my original post, I am looking for something that ends in 200 or 300mm, for longer shots in daylight.

A few times I've wanted to take some pics of nature/ballgames/etc that would require a longer lens but I surely don't have the hundreds and hundreds of dollars required for something like an 18-200 VR lens.

So what I am looking for is one of the following, and was hoping someone could offer advice on the quality of optics of the following:

55-200 Nikkor lens; cheap and sold everywhere.

70-300 Nikon lens; longer range, but does that mean better? I wonder though since with the above lens 100mm would be closer to f5.6 while with this lens it would be closer to the f4... am I wrong there?

My other option is a non Nikon lens that also offers MACRO ability, like the 70-300 with Macro made by Tamron (or is it Sigma)

Any advice would be apprecaited~!

Well as far as the 18-200 it is also no better than what you have now so I would not consider that as a good option. If I were you I would go with a 70-300.
 
If it's just opinion that you need... I have the 70-300 Nikkor lens that was around 180.00.

It worked well for me for years.
 
Hi RM, Have you looked into a Nikon 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6? A used one of these goes for between $50-$75 (under or over YMMV) on e-bay. There is a D model that is 2 to 3 times as much and focuses a little faster. The non-D has the same glass as the D and is very sharp with little distortion (see Rockwell if you like).

Check KEH, they have a couple of D's for around $160
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...A&BCC=1&CC=7&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=70-210mm

Best of luck

mike

BTW, how is the tattoo thing going?
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top