Getting a Nikon D3200

[daddyCreswell]

So I've decided on getting my first DSLR. I have picked the Nikon D3200 to fit the bill. I am buying from Amazon (I have a 400.00 credit) there is the D3200 with 18-55mm lens for 476.00, the other is a bundle it has the D3200, 18-55 mm lens and a 55-200 mm non VR lens for 576.00. Here is my question, is the 55-200 lens worth the extra 100.00 that the bundle is, or would I be better off getting the single lens one and buy another lens that would work better for me? I plan on taking general pictures and also some of my boys playing sports. Thanks for the help.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007VGGHW6/ref=twister_B007VMZNM0

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007VGGHW6/ref=twister_B007VMZNM0

 

[julianliu]

Congratulation on buying your first DSLR.

No I do not recommend buying the 55-200mm. I have a friend who has this lens and try to shoot her daughter doing sports, she told me she often missed the shots and plans to buy a different lens.

 

[Msteelio91]

The 55-200 is still handy you just need to learn to use the non-vr. For an extra $100 I say it's worth it. Another option would be to get an older tele lens but it's going to be slow to focus compared to the new one.

That said, VR is always preferable especially with a long tube. BUT, you will be paying about the same as you did for your entire camera, or more, to get VR in a 200+mm lens.

Amazon.com : Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras : Camera Lenses : Camera & Photo

Only you can decide if that's worth it to you or not.

 

[Braineack]

you can buy the VR version of that lens, used, for ~$100.

 

[Msteelio91]

^^^ There's that option too. Quite a few good sites for used cameras/lenses these days yet I still always forget about them lol

 

[SCraig]

In my opinion the 55-200 (VR or non-VR) is not a very good lens. I had one and finally gave it to my sister. She never uses it either.

My recommendation would be to purchase the Nikon 70-300. It is better in every respect in my opinion.

 

[Msteelio91]

I'll second that, the 70-300 is a much nicer lens.

 

[daddyCreswell]

I'll second that, the 70-300 is a much nicer lens.

I found this one online, its 45.00 more basically than the bundle with the 55-200. This one is motorized, look like a good deal?

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300m...028&sr=1-3&keywords=nikon+d3200+70-300mm+lens

 

[SCraig]

I found this one online, its 45.00 more basically than the bundle with the 55-200. This one is motorized, look like a good deal?

It's a Sigma version. Probably a decent lens but also probably not as good as the Nikon lens. Admittedly I haven't used the Sigma lens but I do have the Nikon lens.

Again, I would strongly recommend the NIKON 70-300 AF-S lens.

 

[Derrel]

For $100, I think the Nikon 55-200 would be nice to have, so you can get familiar with a tele-zoom. It is small and light, and affordable, so you will not worry too much about it getting stolen or ruined. I shot one for a week in Hawaii. It was okay, used on a Nikon D40. The D3200 has a bit better AF system than the D40 had, so it ought to be at least passable.

The Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 AF-S VR-G is "the" lens people want; the Tamron VC is a $449 lens that's probably as good, or better; in the Sigma 70-300 the only one I would buy has the APO designation, and used to be $169 or so, and that is NOT the one being sold in your link above. The thing with 70-300 lenses is the extra 100mm telephoto: that is handy! and, in a long, lightweight tele-zoom, VR or VC (built-in stabilization) can be VERY useful at times, like in the wind, when panning, or when you need to shoot hand-held at f/8 to f/16 for depth of field when doing tripod-free shooting, like on weekends or on vacation or in places where tripods are forbidden, and also at dawn and dusk under similar situations, when these slow lenses cannot give sheer shutter speed,even wide-open.

The Nikon 70-300 VR lens is $325 or so used, which is what I payed for mine two years ago. It's been a good lens for me, I like its focal length range and the size is good. The thing with used tele zooms is there are like 4 classes of them, and people "move up", so there are PLENTY of them on the used market, all the time, across the USA.

 

[KmH]

There are 2 Nikon 70-300 mm lenses.

A low cost ($160) one that will not auto focus on a D3200 - Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor

And one that will auto focus and is one of Nikon's best lens values @ $600 new - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Shooting action sports pretty much requires using better than entry-level kit lenses.

 

[studio460]

You can buy a Nikon-refurbished D3200 (body-only) for $339 from Cameta Camera. I bought my D3200 as a refurb for $275 after an Amazon Chase $50 promotional credit. I bought the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G, for it and use that most of the time on that body.

 

[shadowlands]

Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR if you can... refurbished, or used via adorama or keh....