Which lens is better?

[Ian S]

So I'm looking to buy a new lens, preferably a 200mm one for landscape photos and what not, and I have found a few that should work on my Nikon D3000. I am a tight budget so the lower the price the better, but obviously I want quality more though. My highest is roughly £150 at a very big stretch. Anyway, which one would be better? If you can recommend any others I will be more than happy to take a look.

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX AF-S ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens

Tamron - 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di-II LD Lens for Nik - AF015N700 -

Nikon 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G AF

 

[djacobox372]

"AF" lenses won't autofocus on your d3000. You need a lens with the focus motor in the lens, it should say "AF-S" on it or "HSM."

Only the first lens of those three meets this requirement.

"AF" by itself means it will autofocus with cameras with a motor built into the body (d50, d70, d80, d90, d300, d700, d3)

 

[DerekSalem]

Wait...200mm for landscape photos? Most of the time when shooting landscape photos people will want to use wider-angle lenses (20mm or less). 200mm is a pretty narrow angle for capturing any kind of landscape.

 

[mwcfarms]

That focal length is way too much for landscape. You should be looking at 12mm 24mm or even 35mm and it can dual function. I shoot mine fully open at 18mm.

These are good for landscapes

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/277227-GREY/Nikon_2144_12_24mm_f_4G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

and the cheaper option which I might pick up next month, depends on if Nate keeps me swayed to the macro side with his posts.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381611-REG/Sigma_201306_10_20mm_f_4_5_6D_EX_DC.html

 

[KmH]

So I'm looking to buy a new lens, preferably a 200mm one for landscape photos and what not, and I have found a few that should work on my Nikon D3000. I am a tight budget so the lower the price the better, but obviously I want quality more though. My highest is roughly £150 at a very big stretch. Anyway, which one would be better? If you can recommend any others I will be more than happy to take a look.

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX AF-S ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens

Tamron - 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Di-II LD Lens for Nik - AF015N700 -

Nikon 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G AF

The Nikon AF-S 55-200 is a good value.

The Tamron is not, nor is the Nikon AF 70-300.

The Nikon AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G that has VR is a very good lens for the price, but the price is about $550 USD.

 

[KmH]

Wait...200mm for landscape photos? Most of the time when shooting landscape photos people will want to use wider-angle lenses (20mm or less). 200mm is a pretty narrow angle for capturing any kind of landscape.

"for landscape photos and what not"

 

[mwcfarms]

Wait...200mm for landscape photos? Most of the time when shooting landscape photos people will want to use wider-angle lenses (20mm or less). 200mm is a pretty narrow angle for capturing any kind of landscape.

"for landscape photos and what not"

So wouldnt it be better for him to go an 18 to 200 or 18 to 105 VR for landscapes and what not as opposed to all of the others with the range 55+.

or how about 24 - 70mm or Nikons 16 to 85mm.

Edit I just saw the price guideline so I still think the 18 to 105mm VR isnt bad since it would fall into that range of dollars. Used even less.

 

[Derrel]

The 18-105 is not that bad of a lens! I bought one for my wife, and I have used it....it's quite okay for what it is...stopped down a bit it is amply sharp,and the weight is good, and the overall total focal length range is excellent on a 1.5x small Nikon body.

The 70-300 G, the non-VR model, is older now, and is a lens I bought for $99 refurbished seven years ago..it's a crappy lens above 200mm, with PLENTY of color fringing and very average optics.

I'd rather have the 55-200 VR, than the other two 70-300 lenses.

 

[Markw]

I have the Sigma 10-20 listed above. I absolutely love it. It works wonders and will work for alot more than landscapes, which it does very well, though. For landscapes, you cant do much better than that for the price.

Mark

 

[Ian S]

Sorry guys, I already have a 18-55mm that came with my camera, I should really have mention that. I just wanted one to get more "closer" to things such as street artists without being all up in their faces and such. Many times when I have been out there is always something that interests me from far away but only have 55mm max I can't take it well. I'll also keep the "AF-S" in mind too . Thanks for the replies. I think I'll get the one in the first link soon, unless there are any others.