Lens Advice for Next Purchase

[C4talyst]

I'm hoping to glean some advice for my next lens purchase. I bought my first DSLR about two years while expecting the birth of my first child. Since acquiring it I've become rather enamored with photography, always wanting to visit places where I have a chance to try and learn something new. I spend most of my time in A and S modes these days, but often still take shots on auto just to make sure I walk away with something usable. I wrestle with proficiency while in full manual mode.

I have a D3100 with the 18-55 kit lens, and also the 35/1.8 prime. I like photographing my kid and family events. I also like landscape photography and especially want to photograph full moons every month as I have great vantage points here near the Potomac River.

I do not photograph a lot of sports or action stuff, however, a friend asked me to come and take photos of his involvement in a Tough Mudder event next month. My next, and probably final, DX lens purchases were going to be the new 18-300 VR and the 10-24 for wide angle stuff.

The wide angle can wait awhile, is there a better (DX) lens for me than the 18-300 for getting both moon and sports shots?

 

[bc_steve]

you have 18-55 covered and unless you want to have a "do-everything lens" the 18-300 is probably unnecessary. Keep in mind it is more expensive, bigger and heavier while at the same time won't produce as good image quality as a lens with less of a range of focal lengths. You seem to be looking for some sort of telephoto for your moon and sports shots. The Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6 isn't a bad lens but it may be a little slow for sports photography, but it may work and you can definitely get some nice moon shots. I mention it because the price is right. To get a faster telephoto expect to pay a LOT more.

as far as a wide angle, I recommend you take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 as well. It is fixed aperture while the Nikon 10-24 is variable aperture, and the Tokina is a faster lens and a little bit cheaper.

and keep practicing with the manual mode on your camera, once you master it you will like it a lot better than shooting in automatic.

 

[C4talyst]

you have 18-55 covered and unless you want to have a "do-everything lens" the 18-300 is probably unnecessary. Keep in mind it is more expensive, bigger and heavier while at the same time won't produce as good image quality as a lens with less of a range of focal lengths. You seem to be looking for some sort of telephoto for your moon and sports shots. The Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6 isn't a bad lens but it may be a little slow for sports photography, but it may work and you can definitely get some nice moon shots. I mention it because the price is right. To get a faster telephoto expect to pay a LOT more.

as far as a wide angle, I recommend you take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 as well. It is fixed aperture while the Nikon 10-24 is variable aperture, and the Tokina is a faster lens and a little bit cheaper.

and keep practicing with the manual mode on your camera, once you master it you will like it a lot better than shooting in automatic.

Wow, great advice, I had not been looking at that and the price IS right! Here I was thinking I may not be able to swing a $900 lens between now and the event, but I'll probably pick one of these up. Are there any similar lenses that are a _little_ bit faster?

Sorry if I'm being lazy, you've got me pointed in the right direct, I think.

 

[C4talyst]

Well, the more I read about this lens the more I'm glad I asked...solid advice and it's going to be my next purchase. Thanks again...

 

[sashbar]

see below

 

[sashbar]

The wide angle can wait awhile, is there a better (DX) lens for me than the 18-300 for getting both moon and sports shots?

Since the 18-55 range is already covered by a good lense, I would also consider Nikkor 70-300 VR which might be more suitable for sports shots because of faster AF. I own one and I would say it is not a speed monster, but it has a reasonably fast AF for a tele that will not cost you an arm and a leg. It has no zoom creep whatsoever ( 18-300 might well have one, since there is a lock button), it is easy to operate and focuses reliably well. I have never tried 18-300 but normally you should not expect a fast AF from such a huge zoom range. And I would expect it to be really heavy and bulky piece of glass. And most probably the cheap and cheerful but very capable 18-55 VR kit lense will give you a superior IQ in its range.

 

[bc_steve]

you have 18-55 covered and unless you want to have a "do-everything lens" the 18-300 is probably unnecessary. Keep in mind it is more expensive, bigger and heavier while at the same time won't produce as good image quality as a lens with less of a range of focal lengths. You seem to be looking for some sort of telephoto for your moon and sports shots. The Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6 isn't a bad lens but it may be a little slow for sports photography, but it may work and you can definitely get some nice moon shots. I mention it because the price is right. To get a faster telephoto expect to pay a LOT more.

as far as a wide angle, I recommend you take a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 as well. It is fixed aperture while the Nikon 10-24 is variable aperture, and the Tokina is a faster lens and a little bit cheaper.

and keep practicing with the manual mode on your camera, once you master it you will like it a lot better than shooting in automatic.

Wow, great advice, I had not been looking at that and the price IS right! Here I was thinking I may not be able to swing a $900 lens between now and the event, but I'll probably pick one of these up. Are there any similar lenses that are a _little_ bit faster?

Sorry if I'm being lazy, you've got me pointed in the right direct, I think.

The 70-200/80-200 series of Nikkor lenses are f/2.8, even at their longest focal length so quite a bit faster than the 70-300 which is f/5.6 at 300mm.

As I said earlier though, it gets a lot more expensive and you do lose 100mm on the long end. The newest version, the 70-200 VRII will cost over $2000 new. A used 70-200 VR will cost around $1300ish used and is supposed to be nearly as good on a DX camera. The older 80-200 is probably more in the price range that you seem to be looking at. I was looking at a few of these lenses on ebay a little while ago, and they seemed to be going for around $500.

To get a 300mm lens that fast you are looking at around $5000 for a prime lens. I've seen an older version that still had AF on ebay, and that went for about $2500.

So if it's the speed you want have a look at the 80-200, unless you're willing to pay a bit more for one of the 70-200's. If you can live with a slower lens the 70-300VR is otherwise great.