Lots of Buying Questions

[Rhendera]

Well hello there everyone.

I am full of questions regarding the buying of a Digital SLR and a good starter lens.

I've always wanted to have a DSLR, but never really had the money for it. Recently my friend took me out on a trip and pushed his DSLR (Nikon D70) into my hands with the words 'Go shoot some pictures, have fun.' since he knew that I've always liked photography. Long story short, got some amazing pictures out of it, and I'm hooked.

I have been browsing the internet, and I've decided that I want to go for an entry-level DSLR, Preferably the Nikon D3100. Looked at reviews, Compared etc. Now I've come across some deals with two lenses; the kit lens and either a 55-200mm VR or a 55-300mm VR lens. I've been considering that for a while, my friend showed me his 70-300 lens and also showed the difference between the 200 and 300. Decided for myself that I don't find the difference between 200 and 300 worth the extra 100bucks.

But then I browsed some more... and I read that the kit-lens isn't the most amazing lens. So now I'm considering either getting the body + kit lens and possibly the 70-200 lens OR getting the body and a different good lens.... and that's where I could really use your help. I want a lens that can zoom, I've used a fixed lens as well and honestly I don't really like it. (at least not as my only lens) .. and that's where I'm lost. There are so many lenses and honestly I don't even know which ones I would need. The things I'm mostly gonna take pictures of are:

- Landscapes
- Pets (and Horses)
- Birds
- Sometimes people
- Flowers, Trees, Leaves
... Nature mostly. You get the idea. Although Landscape is on top of the list I don't think that will be something I will be doing a lot.


and yes, there you have it. I'm open to suggestions, I've read about Sigma lenses, also the difference in opinion by everyone. I'm open to anything. Oh and the last thing; my budget is around $900 - $1400 that includes the camera body. Less is good as well, but I don't think that'll be possible.

I hope you guys can help me!

Cheers,
Rhendera

 

[MTVision]

Well hello there everyone.

I am full of questions regarding the buying of a Digital SLR and a good starter lens.

I've always wanted to have a DSLR, but never really had the money for it. Recently my friend took me out on a trip and pushed his DSLR (Nikon D70) into my hands with the words 'Go shoot some pictures, have fun.' since he knew that I've always liked photography. Long story short, got some amazing pictures out of it, and I'm hooked.

I have been browsing the internet, and I've decided that I want to go for an entry-level DSLR, Preferably the Nikon D3100. Looked at reviews, Compared etc. Now I've come across some deals with two lenses; the kit lens and either a 70-200VR or a 70-300VR lens. I've been considering that for a while, my friend showed me his 70-300 lens and also showed the difference between the 200 and 300. Decided for myself that I don't find the difference between 200 and 300 worth the extra 100bucks.

But then I browsed some more... and I read that the kit-lens isn't the most amazing lens. So now I'm considering either getting the body + kit lens and possibly the 70-200 lens OR getting the body and a different good lens.... and that's where I could really use your help. I want a lens that can zoom, I've used a fixed lens as well and honestly I don't really like it. (at least not as my only lens) .. and that's where I'm lost. There are so many lenses and honestly I don't even know which ones I would need. The things I'm mostly gonna take pictures of are:

- Landscapes
- Pets (and Horses)
- Birds
- Sometimes people
- Flowers, Trees, Leaves
... Nature mostly. You get the idea. Although Landscape is on top of the list I don't think that will be something I will be doing a lot.

and yes, there you have it. I'm open to suggestions, I've read about Sigma lenses, also the difference in opinion by everyone. I'm open to anything. Oh and the last thing; my budget is around $900 - $1400 that includes the camera body. Less is good as well, but I don't think that'll be possible.

I hope you guys can help me!

Cheers,
Rhendera

I think you are mistaken about the 2 lenses. You must mean the 70-300 and the 55-200. The 70-200 is close to 2,000.00. But anyways, the 70-300 is the better lens compared to the 55-200. There is a 55-300 as well but the 70-300 is still better. The kit lens is an excellent lens for the money. If you know what you are doing then its an amazing lens and can take amazing pictures. I would get the kit lens and the zoom you mentioned. Then buy an external flash like a SB-700. If you liked prime lenses I would recommend the 50mm f/1.8 since its fast and amazing in low light which neither of the lenses you mentioned are. The external flash - once you know how to use it will make a world of difference. The kit lenses are great to learn on and to figure out what you might want for a more expensive lens. You'll need a nice tripod as well!!

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

Don't be too put off by the bad reputation that all the 'kit' lenses have. They really aren't that bad, especially for someone just starting out and especially on a tight budget.

I'm not sure which 70-200mm lens you're talking about. The only Nikon 70-200mmVR lens that I know of, is $2400.

 

[Rhendera]

Must be my mistake then, probably the 55-200 and the 55-300. my bad, sorry. =X

Edit: I'm talking about these;

55-200mm VR lens


55-300mm VR Lens

I hope this clears up the confusion. Sorry for the mistake, beginner and all.

 

[Big Mike]

That sounds more like it.

I agree, for typical shooting, you may not find a lot of difference between 200mm and 300mm.
So I'd suggest getting a kit with the 18-55mm at least. If you want a telephoto, then either of those would be a decent choice for your budget. Don't forget to budget for a few other things like a memory card, maybe extra batteries, a camera bag, maybe a flash or a tripod etc.

 

[KenC]

If you are interested in close-ups of nature subjects, like small flowers, mushrooms, leaves, etc., then you might want to have a macro lens. Most of the nature photographers I know couldn't live without one. There are other ways to get these photos, e.g., close-up filters and extension tubes, but they have serious disadvantages relative to macro lenses.

 

[Rhendera]

If you are interested in close-ups of nature subjects, like small flowers, mushrooms, leaves, etc., then you might want to have a macro lens. Most of the nature photographers I know couldn't live without one. There are other ways to get these photos, e.g., close-up filters and extension tubes, but they have serious disadvantages relative to macro lenses.

Yeah, a macro lens is definitely a goal; but all the macro-lenses I've found so far are quite expensive, so that would require some saving up.

 

[Infinite_Day]

If you can afford it you may want to look at stepping up to the d5100. From all I've read it's worth it. Also, you could look into a used D90 instead. The D90 body has more features as far as a top LCD, more direct controls, in-body AF motor for the lenses without built-in motors, etc. It's a pretty solid camera and might be a good option as well. You can't really go wrong with the 70-300mm as a starter tele-zoom. That extra 100mm you didn't think was worth the extra $100 for? Well, you'll probably find you'll want that extra reach and then some when you get into shooting wildlife of any kind outside of insects and some other small vertebrates. I have a 300mm with a 1.4 TC on a crop sensor camera which essentially produces 630mm images and I still wish I had more reach.

 

[Infinite_Day]

If you are interested in close-ups of nature subjects, like small flowers, mushrooms, leaves, etc., then you might want to have a macro lens. Most of the nature photographers I know couldn't live without one. There are other ways to get these photos, e.g., close-up filters and extension tubes, but they have serious disadvantages relative to macro lenses.

Yeah, a macro lens is definitely a goal; but all the macro-lenses I've found so far are quite expensive, so that would require some saving up.

One of the best macros for the money Nikon Autofocus 90 F2.8 TAMRON MACRO DI SP 1:1 (55)(272E) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

 

[Rhendera]

If you are interested in close-ups of nature subjects, like small flowers, mushrooms, leaves, etc., then you might want to have a macro lens. Most of the nature photographers I know couldn't live without one. There are other ways to get these photos, e.g., close-up filters and extension tubes, but they have serious disadvantages relative to macro lenses.

Yeah, a macro lens is definitely a goal; but all the macro-lenses I've found so far are quite expensive, so that would require some saving up.

One of the best macros for the money Nikon Autofocus 90 F2.8 TAMRON MACRO DI SP 1:1 (55)(272E) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

Thanks a bunch, that's definitely a good option.


I've read the reviews from the D5100 too; the only thing that's really better is the sensor and some video options (atleast that's what I understood from the reviews) and I don't plan on using the video. But it's still in consideration. A secondhanded D90 body could be an option but I have no idea what prices those go by.... Like I said im open for any suggestion.

Also: any reccomendations on bags, Tripods and the like?

 

[mrpink]

I sold my gripped D90 for $595. I have seen them go for under $500 w/o a grip. Keep in mind, this is body only.

I would suggest looking into a used D90 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC lens- if you shop smart, you will be in under budget and very happy with your landscape shots. Then start saving for a nice telephoto like a 80-200 2.8 AF-D for your wild life.

As far as tripods go, get a nice solid one that will handle the weight of the gear you wish to use. Bags are much more of a personal opinion type of answer, goto a local camera shop and test them out for a fit and function that suits you. FWIW, I love my Kata 3n1 10 bag- holds way more gear than it looks.






p!nK

 

[dylanstraub]

Suggestions for purchasing a new Dslr:

Research- see what's out there. Don't just limit yourself to Canon or Nikon. Check all of the brands. DPreview.com is a great place to start your research.

Narrow it down- figure out what features you like. What can you afford what are you willing to sacrifice to fit you're budget?

Price- How much are you willing to pay for your DSLR. Don't rule out the used equipment sites. adorama, B&H and KEH.com all have very good used sites with honest ratings and you may be able to save yourself some money buying used.

 

[Infinite_Day]

Hmmm.... not a lot of used D90's out there on B&H, Adorama or KEH right now. Surprising. I think it would fit into your budget very well though if you could find one. About $650 for the body maybe? You can't go wrong with Lowepro bags for a more cost-effective alternative that is still very well built. I have a Slingshot 100AW which is a sling bag and it holds my gripped D7000, 50mm, 18-105mm, and 90mm with room for the charger and some cleaning accessories and some room left over. I like it for travel and the price is usually good on Amazon. I can't help you with the tripod - I'm still shopping for that one myself. You can spend as much on a good tripod as you can on your camera, however, so be prepared for sticker shock in that category.

 

[mangtarn]

pretty much everything in photography involves sticker shock. wait until you want a good flash and a solid tripod and faster lens. even the bags are expensive.

 

[KmH]

While the professional grade Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII lens (new) is $2400, it was launched about a year ago. The previous 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR I version sells used for $1400 to $1800.

Nikon has made several professional grade versions in an 80-200 mm f/2.8 lens. The older push-pull-to-zoom versions can be bought used for $450 - $650, while the current 80-200mm f/2.8 2-ring version sells new for $1100.

However, the less expensive current and older 80-200 mm f/2.8 lenses rely on the camera body having an auto focus motor in them. The ultra compact 'baby' Nikon's - D3000/D3100/D5000/D5100 - don't have an auto focus motor in them to keep them compact.