Decided on Camara, now what lenses should I get?

sm428 · Sep 7, 2011

I have found a cheap deal on the Nikon D3100 and am unsure what lenses should go with it. I do not want to spend too much and would like to keep the price for 2 lenses under 400€ or 250-300€ for 1 (if I get the kit lense). I am going to go working/traveling in India and South East Asia for 8 months so would like to take photos of Landscapes, People and the temples etc that this part of the world can offer. I would like to give Macro a shot but not all too fussed.

I can buy the Kit lense 18-55mm which would be included with the Nikon, but have found good deals for just the body. Is it worth getting the kit lense? I want to be able to take wideangle photos is this possible with this lense?

The second lense I was told would be good is the Nikon 55-300 (or the 55-200). However I have seen that for less price I could buy the Tamron or Sigma 70-300. Maybe a different 3rd Party lense would be a good choice.

Besides that any suggestions on 2 lenses are welcome. Maybe its worth going for the Kit lense and then one extra lense on top of that.

Thanks guys.

flatflip · Sep 7, 2011

If you can get the kit lens for cheap, that would be a great lens. It should be plenty wide enough if this is your first SLR. Look for reviews and comparisons of the 55-200 v 55-300. I have heard only good things about the 55-200 VR lens. I now only have a Tamron lens and I love it but I hope to return to the advice of "stick with Nikon lenses".

Ant · Sep 7, 2011

The 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the D3100 is pretty decent, and you'll effectively be getting a discount on it by getting it as part of the kit, so I would go with that as a starter.

As to other lenses, it depends what you want to do. You've mentioned wide angle. How wide? I've found 18mm to be ok but it works out at an equivalent perspective of 28mm on a D3100, which many would point out is not really a true 'wide angle' lens. Unfortunately, if you want to go true wide angle they tend to get expensive very quickly and the cheapest decent ones start at around 450 Probably best to see what 18mm looks like and decide if that's wide enough for you.

As previously mentioned the Nikon 55-200 and 55-300 lenses are pretty decent for longer end. I'd go with the 55-300 personally just for the extra reach, but the 55-200 has slighly better IQ if you don't need to go that long.

Another lens I really like is the Nikon 35mm 1.8 AF-S It's quite cheap at about 200 is pretty fast and has good IQ as well. It will be useful for low light situations or for playing around with DOF.

I'm not sure about those Tamron/Sigma 70-300mm lenses you mention. Both companies make/made quite a few different ones so you'd need to specify the exact model to make any judgements. The cheaper ones won't work on your camera (No lens focus motor) and the more expensive ones look to be out of your price range.

BJF · Sep 7, 2011

If you got good deal on D3100 body, I would recommend 18-105mm VR and 35mm f1.8G.

Nikon 18-105mm VR + market price
Nikon 35mm f1.8G + market price

By the way, the blog post may help: Know Digital SLR in 5 Minutes - Lens Choice

sm428 · Sep 7, 2011

Hi. Thanks for the posts. I actually found a new Nikon D3100 with the 18-105 mm and if I buy the 35mm on top it wouldnt be much more expensive than buying the combination 18-55 and 55-200/300. How much zoom would I have on the 18-105. Im traveling so would like a decent zoom with me (was considering the Panasonic FZ150 Bridge although that may be over the top). The 35 mm would not allow me to have tele so not 100 percent sure. maybe going for the Sigma/Tamron 28-300 plus the 35mm. But not so keen on not having any sort of wideangle as I am mostly interested in Landscapes and travel photography. How does the 18-55 mm do at night and low light?

I was considering the Sigma 70-300: Amazon.com: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo . I have read some bad reviews about that same lense from tamron. But both have been found faulty over 200mm. The price of the Sigma with the 18-55 is slightly cheaper but if there is a noticable difference then I would go for the 55-200 or 55-300.

Thanks again

flatflip · Sep 7, 2011

I think Tamron has a new 18-270 but the more all-purpose you go the more IQ you sacrifice. None of the afore mentioned lenses do very well in low light except the 35mm f/1.8G. The 18-105 is a nice lens but you have to figure it has half the reach of a 55-200. It does have that nice wide end though.

Ant · Sep 7, 2011

Unfortunately, that Sigma 70-300mm won't autofocus on your camera, so I'd forget about it if I were you. The 18-105 is a nice lens. I've got one that came as the kit with my D90, but 105mm, although nice for a walk around lens, isn't that long really.

The 18-55 is probably almost as good in low light as the 35mm 1.8 actually. It's not as fast but it kind of makes up for it by having VR. The D3100 also has good high ISO so you should be ok barring extremes.

Your biggest problem is that you're obviously working to a tight budget. This means you're going to have to make compromises. If I were you I'd just get the camera with 18-55mm kit and then the 55-300mm That gives you a brilliant range from 18mm up to 300mm for not a lot of money. You can then start saving for your next lens and you'll have a much better idea of what you want after shooting with the above.

niftydriftyprod · Sep 7, 2011

18-55. i dropped mine about 3 months ago and it broke. so i bought the 55-200 and now i wish i had just bought the 18-55 again. very versatile lens for a first lens.

BJF · Sep 7, 2011

sm428 said:
Hi. Thanks for the posts. I actually found a new Nikon D3100 with the 18-105 mm and if I buy the 35mm on top it wouldnt be much more expensive than buying the combination 18-55 and 55-200/300. How much zoom would I have on the 18-105. Im traveling so would like a decent zoom with me (was considering the Panasonic FZ150 Bridge although that may be over the top). The 35 mm would not allow me to have tele so not 100 percent sure. maybe going for the Sigma/Tamron 28-300 plus the 35mm. But not so keen on not having any sort of wideangle as I am mostly interested in Landscapes and travel photography. How does the 18-55 mm do at night and low light?

I was considering the Sigma 70-300: Amazon.com: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo . I have read some bad reviews about that same lense from tamron. But both have been found faulty over 200mm. The price of the Sigma with the 18-55 is slightly cheaper but if there is a noticable difference then I would go for the 55-200 or 55-300.

Thanks again

I suppose that you may need a large aperture prime lens for indoor and low light shooting. Since you prefer a telephoto lens, I would recommend Nikon 70-300mm VR. It is designed for full frame. On your D3100 the focal length will be equivalent to 105-450mm, perfect add-on to your 18-105mm DX lens. This lens has AF motor inside and works well on D3100 for auto-focus. Here you are the market price.