secondary lens for d3100

wellbeloved747 · Jun 14, 2012

i have recently purchased a Nikon d3100 with the standard 18-55 lens. i am looking to add a longer range lens to my setup but i am confused on what one to buy. i was looking at the tamron 55-200, nikkor 55-200 and the nikkor 55-300. i have found that with my previous lumix g1 that my 14-45 was great for still shots and my 45-200 was great for long distance still shots but i recently went wale watching in alaska and i found i needed a lens that was all in one for convenience as one minute there was a wale just near me and the next it was 500ft of. so would i be better buying an all in one and selling the 18-55. i occasionally find the 200 to short so maybe a 300 all be better or am i better getting the 200 and in the future getting a 200-500??
i will look to expand my d3100 kit in the future and am a complete novice to dslr's and lenses. i am a all round photographer really as i take my camera every where i go so what lenses would you recommend i pick up in the future and why

any comments would help greatly

thanks Matt!

fjrabon · Jun 14, 2012

Pros to a 'do it all': Don't have to change lenses, versatility, dont have to carry other lenses.

Cons to a 'do it all': Very mild reduction in image quality at either end of the spectrum, less ability to shoot in low light and much less control over depth of field, typically heavier

Outside of that, you have to decide what's best for you.

JoshuaSimPhotography · Jun 14, 2012

Nikon has just released a 18-300 lens, so it's. Very compact as it is 2 lenses in 1!!

fjrabon · Jun 14, 2012

JoshuaSimPhotography said:
Nikon has just released a 18-300 lens, so it's. Very compact as it is 2 lenses in 1!!

THough it actually weighs more than the 18-55mm and 55-300mm combined.

greybeard · Jun 15, 2012

I use a Nikon 55-200 with my 18-55 and I am quite happy with this combination. The 18-300mm is an interesting option but at $1,000, that is a lot to spend on convenience only, the IQ over that kind of zoom range has got to suffer. If I'm going to spend that kind of money on a lens I want something like a Nikkor 105mm Macro.

wellbeloved747 · Jun 15, 2012

i think i may pick up the tarmac 55-200 for now as it is like half the price of the nikkor 55-200. is it any good?

Solarflare · Jun 15, 2012

Neither I nor google know anything about a company named "Tarmac".

Are you talking about Tamron ?

I can find a Tamron AF 55-200mm 4-5,6 Di II LD Macro with google but that lens would be of no interest to me - no VR and macro needs a whole lot of special equipment (tripod, macro flashlight, cable release) and I'm personally not very interested in photographing ants and stuff like that.

jrizal · Jun 16, 2012

Go with the Nikon 55-200mm. It's $50 more than the Tamron but IMO worth the difference. Also AFAIK, it's also nott AF-S compatible meaning no autofocus on the D3100. The 200mm came with my D3100 as a bundle and IMO is a pretty decent lens for its price at $249. The 55-300mm which may be more suit for your needs sells for $399. For more info on the Tamron, see below.http://www.bythom.com/Tamron55-200lensreview.htmPS There are better lenses out there, but let's keep costs to a minimum for now.