Looking for lens advice

[GlennT]

I'd also go with a telephoto. When I started out, I spent money up front to get just a body and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. That's a respectable lens, but going for years without a telephoto was frustrating. I ended up upgrading from the Tamron to a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 later anyway, although I still have the Tamron, mostly for use on the old camera body. I waited until I could afford a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1300 at the time), but if I could do it over, I'd be more inclined to pick up an entry level telephoto from the start. It would have been better than all those missed shots that I couldn't get, just because I didn't have the equipment.

FWIW, if you spent a couple hundred on a consumer grade telephoto, you could pick up a decent tripod with the money left over. Just as an example, I have an Induro AT213 that I absolutely love and goes for $140. It's not light, but my heaviest combo is pretty hefty, and I needed the height. They include a bag, and I found mine to be surprisingly nice; padded, and big enough to fit the tripod with the tripod head mounted on it. I have a PhotoClam PRO-42NS ballhead, which is pretty heavy duty, but it would leave you plenty of room to grow. You do have to buy mounting plates separately (common with higher end heads), but PhotoClam uses Arca-Swiss type plates, which are readily available. You can get plates made specifically for your camera, so they fit better and don't let the camera rotate on the mount. I have 3 PhotoClam plates that I've been impressed with, and I love that they have slots for straps. There are tons of options out there though, and choosing a tripod and head can be a very personal thing. That said, this setup has been solid enough that I don't see ever upgrading, unless I want something lighter... and even then, I'd only replace the legs.

 

[zombiesniper]

With a week of photography under your belt I would suggest that you should get out and shoot.
Learn your camera and from your mistakes. Over time you'll see where your gear is falling short. At this point you would be in a better place to pick up gear that will actually give you the ability to take the pictures you want.

 

[ByronBrant]

Your 18-55 covers the wide end fine. Pick up a nice used or refurbished 70-300. And have fun!

 

[gckless]

I recently bought a 70-300mm VR for $215 on Craigslist. There are good deals on CL, you just might have to wait and carefully inspect. If you get lucky, you can have a wide angle and a telephoto for under your budget.

If you are getting a shorter prime, I would suggest the 35mm f/1.8 versus the 50mm for what you do. I think those suggesting 50mm are probably used to full frame, and the 35mm on your D3300 would be the same field of view. I think 50mm might be a touch to tight for you. That was my first lens other than the kit lens, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, don't regret that one at all. Best thing is, only $200.

But, if you're looking for wide lenses, you can use your 18-55mm to decide what focal length would be best for you. Set it to a certain length, and then just spend a couple days not zooming at all. Do you like 18mm? 35mm? 50mm? Or maybe shorter or wider would suit you better. As others have mentioned, the two things you said you're interested in really need two different lenses, or a lens with a very wide range (which is either not really worth getting because the quality isn't that great, or very expensive). First thing is to figure out what you really want, then get it. You'll spend less and be happier in the end.

 

[whatever]

Sorry to take over but I'm debating on buy this lens for star photography:

Tokina 11-16mm

I mainly like it for the high aperture and wider angle.

 

[ronlane]

Sorry to take over but I'm debating on buy this lens for star photography:

Tokina 11-16mm

I mainly like it for the high aperture and wider angle.

Well start your own thread on this topic instead of apologizing for taking over this one.