Lens Suggestions (Nikon)

[TJ K]

Ok so I have a nikon d90 and the kit 18-105 lense. Now I was hoping to get something that could reach a bit further without busting the bank. So I would like to see what ya'll can suugest to me. I don't want to spend much more than a few hundred dollars if possible. It doesn't have to be strictly nikkor either. Thank you.

 

[tirediron]

Nikkor 70-300 f4 - 5.6; if you look at the used market, you can likely find the f4 constant version.

 

[ANDS!]

Or the 50-200MM VR lens, which can be had for about 150 bucks used if you do your search right.

 

[TJ K]

Ya but the 55 200 doesn't cover much more so thats a lot of wasted mm right?

 

[Overread]

Try to avoid viewing lenses as collecting/covering all the focal lengths - gaps in focal length in your setup as well as overlaps need not be a problem at all - what is important is that the lenses you have will let you shoot the subjects and shots that you want to take.
Overlap can be good since it means you don't always have to change lenses to get that other focal length - whilst gaps can also make it easier to pick which lens to use for a scene.

 

[anubis404]

The 80-200 F2.8 AF push pull zoom can be had for about $500 if you shop correctly. This lens has professional quality optics and build. If you prefer the two ring AF-D version (I do), it can be had for around $650 if you shop correctly. I prefer it due to its more professional appearance and faster AF, not to mention the tripod collar. Both of these lenses are fast, affordable, and optically excellent.

What is your budget?

 

[EhJsNe]

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 II DC Lens is around 300 dollars and with the crop on the camera body would be 27-350mm.

My teacher has the canon version of this lens, its not that heavy (Her Canon EOS XS and lens is of close weight to my Nikon FM10 and 80-200mm f/4 lens) and its sharp, from the 4 times ive used it, fast autofocus (outside in the sun...back when it was sunny....but its getting there again! YAY!) and feels right holding it.

The only problem is if you like shallow depth of feild, the 6.3 isnt going to get it for you, but the 3.5 will--so just ignore the zoom ring and its all good!

And, if you like it, you could sell your other lens, but i woulnt suggest this. I think the part that comes out when you zoom it is rather annoying (Im used to my lenses where I zoom and focus with the same ring, so im not sure if thats how all AF Zoom lenses are, or if its just another way to make a lens, I just dont like it!)

 

[epp_b]

Ya but the 55 200 doesn't cover much more so thats a lot of wasted mm right?

Not necessarily. That's basically twice as long as what you currently have. Having some overlap means that you don't have to constantly change lenses. That said, the 70-300 VR gives you more reach and still has nearly as much overlap.

Either would be a good option, but the 55-200 VR is quite a bit cheaper.

The only problem is if you like shallow depth of feild, the 6.3 isnt going to get it for you, but the 3.5 will

Actually, at 200mm, you'll be focusing towards the near end, which causes a shallow depth of field more than a wide aperture does.

 

[AlexColeman]

Or if you save up for quite a long time, you can get the 70-200.

 

[TJ K]

How important would you all say VR really is because the 70-300 non vr is significantly cheaper than the VRII version. About 400 dollars so the non vr is much more affordable. Thanks.

 

[epp_b]

How important would you all say VR really is

VeRy

because the 70-300 non vr is significantly cheaper than the VRII version. About 400 dollars so the non vr is much more affordable. Thanks.

The non-VR version is not AF-S and is a significantly different optical design. It's reportedly very soft beyond 200mm, though apparently the right sort of softness for portraits.

 

[TJ K]

Damn I was hoping to not here that now I must buy it haha. How is borrowlenses.com? It looks legit and good I might rent the lens from there and check it out.