Should I upgrade?

[KFAM]

Ok so I bought my first DSLR early this past winter. I had determined I was buying myself the Nikon D3200 for my first starter camera but at the time I didn't have the funds for what I wanted so while I was saving and waiting I ran across a pro who had a Nikon D3000 in basically new condition he was selling he only used it long enough to teach his wife. So I decided to buy it so I could get started sooner. Now I am looking at buying a new lens I only currently have the basic 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. I am looking at maybe buying the 18-300mm, I take a lot of outdoor pictures of scenery and animals and the 18-55 doesn't do the trick when I cant get close enough to my subject. I have been pretty satisfied with portraits of my son, dogs, and horses but I really want more. I also would like to get some shots of people showing horses and maybe some fun action shots of animals and kids, maybe some birds. Anyway does this lens sound like it might fit my needs? Also I have been considering getting the Nikon D3300. Should I get the new lens and new camera or just stick with a new lens for now? I have priced things and can afford both but will it be worth it, is it even that much of an upgrade?
thanks!

 

[table1349]

Why, have you outgrown that one? Is it limiting you or your photography? Frankly, do you even know, understand and can use ALL of the functionality that it has?

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok so I bought my first DSLR early this past winter. I had determined I was buying myself the Nikon D3200 for my first starter camera but at the time I didn't have the funds for what I wanted so while I was saving and waiting I ran across a pro who had a Nikon D3000 in basically new condition he was selling he only used it long enough to teach his wife. So I decided to buy it so I could get started sooner. Now I am looking at buying a new lens I only currently have the basic 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. I am looking at maybe buying the 18-300mm, I take a lot of outdoor pictures of scenery and animals and the 18-55 doesn't do the trick when I cant get close enough to my subject. I have been pretty satisfied with portraits of my son, dogs, and horses but I really want more. I also would like to get some shots of people showing horses and maybe some fun action shots of animals and kids, maybe some birds. Anyway does this lens sound like it might fit my needs? Also I have been considering getting the Nikon D3300. Should I get the new lens and new camera or just stick with a new lens for now? I have priced things and can afford both but will it be worth it, is it even that much of an upgrade?
thanks!

Well I've always advise folks to figure out what their current camera isn't doing for them, and then upgrade based on those features that your current camera doesn't have and the new camera does have - to fill a specific need.

A lot of time you can get a lot more out of upgrading your lens selection first, and then buying a new camera body later when you get to the point when your current body just really isn't fulfilling your needs anymore. But before considering upgrading the body, or even getting new lenses, I think the best first step is to sit down and ask yourself what need(s) do I have that my current setup doesn't meet?

In your case you've already identified one, the lack of telephoto. Personally I'd recommend you take a look at the Nikkor 70-300 mm AF-S VR, it is an outstanding lens and produces very sharp images. I think you'll find 300 mm can be limiting for wildlife shots however if you want something in the 400/500/600 mm range they get expensive quickly so you have to balance your need against the money you are comfortable spending to fill it.

 

[Derrel]

Why, have you outgrown that one? Is it limiting you or your photography? Frankly, do you even know, understand and can use ALL of the functionality that it has?

The OP already plainly stated the areas in which he finds the 18-55 kit zoom deficient, and the OP clearly stated the need for a lens that will be better suited to several subjects.

Here's the Ken Rockwell review of the 18-300mm VR Nikkor: Nikon 18-300mm VR Review

Here is the review of the same lens by noted Nikon expert Thom Hogan: 18-300mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Seems like a mixed bag to me on the 18-300mm VR, plus it's a fairly large and relatively heavy lens. I personally would consider buying the 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 AF-S VR-G AND another lens that has more zoom range than the 18-55 kit lens has. The 18-55mm kit zooms are small,light, and have a limited focal length range that gives basically, very little "reach". When using an 18-55mm zoom, just when you want to get a close-up of something distant, the lens is maxed out at 55mm, so YES, there is a huge difference in an 18-300mm lens compared to an 18-55. Same with the 70-300mm VR-G lens; it has significantly more "reach" than the 18-55. For the cost of the 18-300mm VR, you could buy a 70-300 VR-G and another zoom lens, or even a nice, fast prime lens like say the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, which is a fabulous optical performer that surpasses the performance of most lenses on the market, regardless of price or maker.

 

[CAP]

You could sell your Company N Brand and get a CANON.

Now that's a upgrade !

 

[KFAM]

Thanks I really appreciate the input. I will have to do a little more looking into the 70-300 VR-G lens for sure. Call me lazy but to be honest I was liking the idea of not having to change my lens very often I figured the 18-300mm would cover most needs but after reading some of the information given here im thinking your right about maybe getting a couple different lenses more specified to certain situations

As for the first response I got I simply preferred to not reply to that. Im not sure if the intention was meant to sound snotty or not but its certainly the way it came across in my opinion. I AM new in the world of photography but I want to learn so I highly appreciate those of you who take the time to give good solid advice, we all have to start some place

 

[KFAM]

haha hey now! I actually really like my Nikon, but I do have a few friends with Canon's and they love those too. If I ever get rich maybe I'll just have both :mrgreen:

You could sell your Company N Brand and get a CANON.

Now that's a upgrade !

 

[table1349]

Why, have you outgrown that one? Is it limiting you or your photography? Frankly, do you even know, understand and can use ALL of the functionality that it has?

The OP already plainly stated the areas in which he finds the 18-55 kit zoom deficient, and the OP clearly stated the need for a lens that will be better suited to several subjects.

Here's the Ken Rockwell review of the 18-300mm VR Nikkor: Nikon 18-300mm VR Review

Here is the review of the same lens by noted Nikon expert Thom Hogan: 18-300mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Seems like a mixed bag to me on the 18-300mm VR, plus it's a fairly large and relatively heavy lens. I personally would consider buying the 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 AF-S VR-G AND another lens that has more zoom range than the 18-55 kit lens has. The 18-55mm kit zooms are small,light, and have a limited focal length range that gives basically, very little "reach". When using an 18-55mm zoom, just when you want to get a close-up of something distant, the lens is maxed out at 55mm, so YES, there is a huge difference in an 18-300mm lens compared to an 18-55. Same with the 70-300mm VR-G lens; it has significantly more "reach" than the 18-55. For the cost of the 18-300mm VR, you could buy a 70-300 VR-G and another zoom lens, or even a nice, fast prime lens like say the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G, which is a fabulous optical performer that surpasses the performance of most lenses on the market, regardless of price or maker.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was speaking to the body not the lens. Since I don't shoot Nikon anymore I tend to stay out of the lens debates. My bad.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks I really appreciate the input. I will have to do a little more looking into the 70-300 VR-G lens for sure. Call me lazy but to be honest I was liking the idea of not having to change my lens very often I figured the 18-300mm would cover most needs but after reading some of the information given here im thinking your right about maybe getting a couple different lenses more specified to certain situations

As for the first response I got I simply preferred to not reply to that. Im not sure if the intention was meant to sound snotty or not but its certainly the way it came across in my opinion. I AM new in the world of photography but I want to learn so I highly appreciate those of you who take the time to give good solid advice, we all have to start some place

The upside to lenses that cover a wide range of focal lengths - 18-200, 18-300, etc - is that you don't have to swap lenses as much. The downside is their image quality generally isn't nearly as good as lenses that cover a much shorter range of focal lengths. The lenses that cover such a big variety of focal lengths are limited by their design, they usually end up being fairly mediocre as a result.

The Nikkor 70-300 mm AF-S G VR is a truly outstanding lens, probably the best in it's class as far as image quality is concerned. It really is worth the time it takes to change lenses.

 

[PaulWog]

One additional thing to note is the megapixel count of your d3000. A new lens is the first and best way to get more reach, but the newer sensors offer a much larger pixel count. That allows for more digital reach (cropping). If you want more reach, simultaneously getting a new 24.2 megapixel camera would do a lot for you.

 

[KFAM]

yeah there is that as well. I also was thinking I don't have the extra money laying around often so since I do now maybe its a good time to get my upgrade rather than waiting until I really feel I need it and don't have the extra cash to do so. I intend to keep my D3000 as a back up if I do. Then the problem is deciding what body exactly I want. Im real weird about those flip out screens, im afraid I will snap it off or something. Its a feature I really just don't want to deal with but it seems like a lot of the bodies have that now. I also don't want to spend a fortune on a body I want the most bang for my buck.

 

[Derrel]

You oughtta read Thom Hogan's brand new D3300 review; I think it ought to be required reading for Nikon users who really want some STRAIGHT TALK on how good the D3300 is, in relation to other cameras, like the D200 and the D90, and even the earlier 16-MP D7000 and so on. Nikon D3300 Review | byThom | Thom Hogan

 

[coastalconn]

I'm not a fan of all in one lenses, but another one worth checking out is the new Tamron 16-300. I've seen some good reviews about it and it gives you an extra 2mm of width on the short end, and it seems to be much less expensive.. could probably add a refurb D3200 and it would only cost $50 more than just the 18-300 Nikon. Just my 2 cents

 

[PaulWog]

yeah there is that as well. I also was thinking I don't have the extra money laying around often so since I do now maybe its a good time to get my upgrade rather than waiting until I really feel I need it and don't have the extra cash to do so. I intend to keep my D3000 as a back up if I do. Then the problem is deciding what body exactly I want. Im real weird about those flip out screens, im afraid I will snap it off or something. Its a feature I really just don't want to deal with but it seems like a lot of the bodies have that now. I also don't want to spend a fortune on a body I want the most bang for my buck.

You should be certain that's what you want to do, I think. If you're upgrading to a new camera body just for more megapixels, and your D3000 does everything you want as it stands right now, then something like a D5200 on a good sale might be a nice choice ($600-ish dollars when not on sale). Alternatively, the D5300 offers better video capabilities, potentially just a bit sharper on some images due to an alteration to the image processing, and that's about $750. Then there's the D7100, which is $1100 and is very much like a professional camera in so many ways. This sort of sale might be a nice combination that you could be looking for (this lens that is packaged in with the camera would give you what might feel like twice the range, but ends up being nearly 3x the range your 18-55 gives you on the long end): Nikon D7100 DSLR Camera with 18-140mm VR DX Lens 13302 B&H Photo

I just chose bhphotovideo as an example. In the smallprint above it seems they give a free extra after-market battery, a backpack, and a 16GB memory card with the camera/lens combo.

 

[KFAM]

You oughtta read Thom Hogan's brand new D3300 review; I think it ought to be required reading for Nikon users who really want some STRAIGHT TALK on how good the D3300 is, in relation to other cameras, like the D200 and the D90, and even the earlier 16-MP D7000 and so on. Nikon D3300 Review | byThom | Thom Hogan

whoa! info overload, I think I read that twice and I may need to read it a couple more times tomorrow