More lens advice needed

nh10ring · Sep 7, 2015

Okay, so I am about to pull the trigger on the Nikon D3300 that comes with a 18-55mm VRII lens and a 55-200mm lens. As mentioned in previous posts, this will be my first DSLR camera. My budget is quite limited since I am trying to save up for a western vacation next year with the family. I can quickly see how this can be an addicting hobby and I am already interested in getting another lens with my purchase. I am torn between two choices:
1) Nikon 35mm f/1.8g (which I understand is great for portraits)
2) Tamron 70-300mm VC (which I understand is great for zooming)

With the exception of next year's planned vacation to the Grand Canyon, Yosemite National Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, most pictures will be taken at family events (birthdays, lake parties, etc...), school sporting events (downhill skiing, track), and probably of New England foliage now that I will have a real camera. With that said, which lens (if either) would you recommend? Or will the kit lenses be all I need?

Peeb · Sep 7, 2015

One lens will give you more telephoto reach, but will duplicate much of the range of the other telephoto- I don't recommend that approach.

One lens will put you into a focal length you already own, but will give you much much lower (better) aperture options.

How fast (aperture) is the Tamron? Any info on how fast it focuses? If it's superior to the 200, I'd either get the 300 instead of the 200, or get the f/1.8 lens (some would say instead of the 18-55, but I have no quarrel with that lens, as it's pretty cost-effective as part of a kit).

Disclaimer: stating what I would do is not equivalent to good advice.

nh10ring · Sep 7, 2015

Peeb said:
One lens will give you more telephoto reach, but will duplicate much of the range of the other telephoto- I don't recommend that approach.

One lens will put you into a focal length you already own, but will give you much much lower (better) aperture options.

How fast (aperture) is the Tamron? Any info on how fast it focuses? If it's superior to the 200, I'd either get the 300 instead of the 200, or get the f/1.8 lens (some would say instead of the 18-55, but I have no quarrel with that lens, as it's pretty cost-effective as part of a kit).

Disclaimer: stating what I would do is not equivalent to good advice.

From the reviews I have read, the 70-300 is faster and more superior than the 55-200. That leads my to a new thought process.... Maybe get the package that includes the camera w/18-55mm lens and then order the 70-300mm lens. Will the 70-300 do everything that the 55-200 will do? Or are there advantages to having the 55-200 that makes it worth owning?

Designer · Sep 7, 2015

nh10ring said:
With the exception of next year's planned vacation to the Grand Canyon, Yosemite National Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, most pictures will be taken at family events (birthdays, lake parties, etc...), school sporting events (downhill skiing, track), and probably of New England foliage now that I will have a real camera. With that said, which lens (if either) would you recommend? Or will the kit lenses be all I need?

Hey! Soon-to-be congratulations!

In another of your threads I wrote that the 18-55 is on my camera almost all the time. I like the range of zoom for most family functions, and nearly everything else.

Since the 35mm length is actually included within the 18-55mm range, I would consider it redundant in that regard. The wider maximum aperture is nice to have sometimes, but I would not make that my first choice for portraiture.

I checked #3; use the "kit" lenses. There is a reason Nikon's retailers often bundle those two lenses with an entry-level body; they're good, and they don't overlap, giving you an effective range (by switching lenses) of from 18mm to 200mm.

Nikon, Canon, and most of the rest have done extensive market research on what type of photography people do, and have made equipment that will perform in that range. Retailers have found that by bundling a useful package of gear aimed at typical beginners, they can not only sell the gear, but they will also have happy customers. Trying to re-think that strategy seems to me a waste of time and brain cells. You're going to end up with those two entry-level lenses anyway, so why not relax and enjoy them?

Designer · Sep 7, 2015

nh10ring said:
Will the 70-300 do everything that the 55-200 will do? Or are there advantages to having the 55-200 that makes it worth owning?

Well, you'd be "missing" the range of 56mm to 69mm, if that makes any difference. Probably not.

SCraig · Sep 7, 2015

Personally I'd ditch the 55-200 and get a Nikon 70-300. I had the 55-200 and hated it, I also have the 70-300 and love it.

robbins.photo · Sep 7, 2015

nh10ring said:
From the reviews I have read, the 70-300 is faster and more superior than the 55-200. That leads my to a new thought process.... Maybe get the package that includes the camera w/18-55mm lens and then order the 70-300mm lens. Will the 70-300 do everything that the 55-200 will do? Or are there advantages to having the 55-200 that makes it worth owning?

That would be my recommendation, I think you'll find the 70-300 mm a much better fit overall than the 55-200, it will give you more flexibility and better image results. You really don't need both the 55-200 and the 70-300, so if it were me I'd go with the 70-300.

I'd also stick with the 18-55, I don't think you'll find the 35 wide enough on a crop sensor for some of the shots your likely to want of say the Grand Canyon. Don't get me wrong, I love my primes, but in this case I think your best bet is the two zooms.

petrochemist · Sep 7, 2015

If it comes with both lenses why not give them a try before deciding.
I suspect I'd find the 70-300 more useful than the 55-200 the extra reach being a significant advantage for many subjects I shoot.
The faster aperture of the 35 will certainly be useful at times but as stated above it's FOV might be somewhat limiting.

Mr.Photo · Sep 7, 2015

Everyone is quick to want to upgrade the so called "kit" lenses. Nikon's "kit" lenses are some of the best budget lenses made by any manufacturer period (including Canon). That being said, although I did sell my 55-200 VR to offset the cost of my Tamron 70-300 VC it wasn't because it was a bad lens. I simply wanted the extra reach. Also I kept and used my 55-200 VR extensively for a year before I upgraded. I currently still own and use my Nikon 18-55 VR lens when I want something light and compact.

Here's a couple of shots I've taken with both of these lenses.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/iJ301ATZr2oY3ZOuiCNnJ_-Wn9o4FfEJiRCV8-2xoeI?feat=directlink
18-55 VR
55-200 VR

We all get hit with the "new lens bug", but when you learn to properly use your new camera with the so called "kit" lenses you will find that they are good enough for most photo's.

goodguy · Sep 7, 2015

Easy, get the 35mm 1.8G, you need a fast lens for lower light situation and the 35mm will fill that nische.
The 70-300 will give you only extra 100mm on the 55-200mm, I dont see a logic to own both the 55-200mm and 70-300mm