which lens..

robbins.photo · Sep 4, 2014

Well when you get ready you can always add something like a 35 or 50 mm 1.8 AF-S G lens into the mix later on down the road, I haven't used the 35 myself but I love the 50, it's a fantastic lens. I also very much like the Tamron 70-300 mm I recently purchased:

20140821 075 by robbins.photo, on Flickr

Was very impressed with the image quality, I didn't see on used on KPH but you could also check Ebay - I paid $220 for mine, was quite a bargain I thought considering the image quality. I needed something a little lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8 I'm normally lugging around.

dannylightning · Sep 4, 2014

definitely good quality, very sharp and it sounds like you got one heck of a deal on that lens.

as far as lens brands that cost less than Nikon that will produce IQ that is comparable to Nikon lenses, what are some brands to look at ??

Rob5589 · Sep 4, 2014

The 70-300 VR AF S will work on the 5200. Amazon always shows FX lenses as incompatible with DX bodies for some reason. I picked mine up used, if you can even call it that, from KEH. It was rated as "EX" but looks brand new. It is quite a bit better in IQ and focus speed than the 55-200 I was using.

Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron make great lenses for Nikon bodies. The Sigma 50-150 2.8 is rated as a top zoom for the 5200 on DXOMark. But it is nearly 1k compared to the mid 400's for the 70-300 used at KEH.

odagled · Sep 5, 2014

I say go for the 70-300mm VR. I loved that lens. It felt sturdy, really rugged. The AF was pretty fast as well. If you can, get the 18-70mm DX & 70-300mm VR. That way you have a wide focal length coverage AND great image quality. I bought my 18-70mm for $70 on craigslist. If I remember correctly, I got the 70-300 mm VR for... $300? Both were used of course. Both lenses will autofocus with your camera.

dannylightning · Sep 5, 2014

right now i am thinking the 70-300mm would be a good way to go, i can get a used nikon or a new sigma with their version of VR for less than the used nikon, from what i am reading and the photos i have viewed that sigma almost looks to be a better lens so i am thinking about which one to get. either way it will run me.

i think i am going to pick up a 35mm 1.8F lens that should be perfect for indoor and low light photography and its pretty inexpensive compared to what other lenses cost, i would really like a lens that will shoot well at night. and i think i would rather have a 35mm over a 50mm

the meike mk-910 i-ttl speed light flash is something i am looking at since the stock flash is kind of lousy, i guess it is a clone of one of the nikon speed light flashes. not sure if i would really use it much so i may hold off on this for a while.

it looks like both lenses and the flash would cost me about what one of these Nikon lenses i was looking at would cost new.

upgrading the kit lens is something i may or may not want to do, ill see how i like the 35mm lens for general shooting. eventually i may get a better lens than the kit lens but it seems to do pretty well but over all i think the kit lens has a nice zoom range and it seems to take some pretty nice photos.

dannylightning · Sep 5, 2014

well my friend stopped over and i asked his wife if she would bring some of her lenses, she did, she has the 18-200mm, 70-300mm, 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8. she had one other lens but i cant remember what it was exactly, i think her kit lens, i did not try that one out.

i was actually amazed at how good the 18-200 is, the pics look loads better than with the kit lens, auto focus was faster, the lens seemed to do better in low lightning and everything else. than i went out in the yard and got some pics of a few birds and squirrels at 200mm, very impressive lens IMO

the 70-300 did have amazing pic quality as well and that extra 100mm of zoom sure is nice, it is a bit more impressive IMO but i like the fact that the other lens gives me much better IQ in the 18-50mm range that the kit lens. i actually think i am going to get the 18=200 now and pick up the 70-300 later if i do not find the 200mm zoom to be enough,

i kind of like the 35mm and 50mm but it seemed like you really had to get the camera just right to get a super nice image, i was able to get some very nice shots of the pet bird but i got allot more that were kind of lousy looking, i think i am going to get the 35mm lens though since it was really good in lower light and a very fast lens. i am sure it will come in handy. i am sure ill get better with the lens if i take enough pics with it.

PaulWog · Sep 5, 2014

If you don't find 200mm enough on the 18-200, and you do end up getting that lens, take a look at the tamron 150-600. That is, if you're really looking for reach on a zoom. The 70-300 might be just a bit too redundant if you get the 18-200

dannylightning · Sep 15, 2014

i am loving my 18-200 but i have my eye on the sigma 150-500 lens.. i got to pay off my credit cards before i let my self buy anything else. after they are paid off ill probably pick up that sigma, but now that you mention the tamron 600mm i looked it up and its a bit more than i want to spend but ill think about that one when the time comes.

thanks..

MystrE · Sep 17, 2014

Sometimes I read the Nikon 70-300 and 55-300 VR lenses have IQ that are identical then other times I read the 70-300 has better IQ. The 70-300 focuses faster but it's price was out of my reach at the time I bought my camera and extra lens... I went with the Nikon 55-300 last Christmas and paid $250 for a new lens at Amazon. I'm happy with the lens and it suits my needs just fine; I mentioned once before I don't know if my heart could take the excitement if the 70-300 IQ is that much better than what I have. Here is a photo taken today with a Nikon 55-300 at ISO 800 and 1/500 second, F9, and 1 1/3 plus stops exposure on a cloudy day.

dannylightning · Sep 17, 2014

that pic looks pretty darn nice to me. my friends wife has the 70-300 and her pics always look very nice, when she throws on her old kit lens her pics always look good too. i know my old D60 with the 18-55 and the 55-200 lens i had several years ago took some very nice photos

i am sure you can probably get really nice photos with any nikon or descent quality lens,

between the 18-200 and her 70-300 i think i can tell a slight increase in IQ but i would not say its a huge difference,

at this point i really like my 18-200 but i do want to get something with more reach so i can get photos of birds better.

here are a few pics i took with the 18-200 that are not touched up to much.

dannylightning · Sep 19, 2014

so let me get this straight here really quick.

a 300mm will zoom in twice as much as my 200mm lens, and a 400mm will zoom in twice as much as a 300mm lens.

so if i get a 400mm i will be able to zoom in 4X closer than i can with my 200mm ?

PaulWog · Sep 19, 2014

dannylightning said:
so let me get this straight here really quick.

a 300mm will zoom in twice as much as my 200mm lens, and a 400mm will zoom in twice as much as a 300mm lens.

so if i get a 400mm i will be able to zoom in 4X closer than i can with my 200mm ?

No. 200 x 2 = 400. You would need an 800mm to get double your 200mm.

The reason why a 70-300mm is redundant if you already have an 18-200mm is because 200mm is 2/3 what 300mm is... and the 70-300mm performs best at about 200mm anyways.

Honestly, if you're on a budget and you feel you *need* more reach than 200mm, then the Tamron 150-600 (or possibly whatever Sigma releases, depending on how they price it) are the most economic options. There are older lenses (ie. 150-500), but you'd have to decide if that degradation in quality is worth the price savings. The best way to figure that out is by reading reviews (and do note the year those reviews are done, since advice from 2010 for example isn't necessarily updated for today), and check out sample shots on flickr and stuff like that.

dannylightning · Sep 19, 2014

i was looking at this sigma 120-400, IQ looks to be top notch on that lens, all the pics i saw taken with that lens appear to be extremely sharp and looked like the kind of IQ i would really like to get. i am not 100% sure if 400mm is long enough but i would assume it would be a pretty nice step up over the 200mm, its about the same price as the tamron 150-600

i was out bird shooting today, i took around 400 photos, all scrapped except for 15, i just could not get close enough and if i were to crop the images i took they needed so much crop just to get a good view of the bird the images no longer looked good.

PaulWog · Sep 19, 2014

dannylightning said:
i was looking at this sigma 120-400, IQ looks to be top notch on that lens, all the pics i saw taken with that lens appear to be extremely sharp and looked like the kind of IQ i would really like to get. i am not 100% sure if 400mm is long enough but i would assume it would be a pretty nice step up over the 200mm, its about the same price as the tamron 150-600

i was out bird shooting today, i took around 400 photos, all scrapped except for 15, i just could not get close enough and if i were to crop the images i took they needed so much crop just to get a good view of the bird the images no longer looked good.

A few pieces of advice:

1) If you spend less now, and you have reasonably high expectations, you will likely be left wanting more. For most sane individuals, there should be a 'good enough' performance point... the problem is that most people set their budget at a bracket which does not meet their "good enough" standards. If you're new and it's your first purchase, you'll quickly find out that you cannot know what you will be happy with since you don't have that experience yet.
2) 400mm is nice, but 600mm is nicer. If you're doing dedicated bird shooting and/or similar types of shooting, you will quickly learn that more reach is a good thing. Not only will you look to the sharpness of the lens, but you'll look at the limitations of the lens and realize that 400mm stops at 400mm. This isn't an issue with super sharp prime lenses, they can be cropped out... but a 120-400mm, you don't get as much leeway to crop.
3) Resale value is important on a lens. If you're new, there's a higher chance you'll somehow end up selling a lens soon after acquiring it. It just happens with beginners... certainly happened with me with a couple of my lenses just a year ago. Think about which lenses are in demand, and how easily you could sell an oddball lens that is a bit older.
4) Don't be afraid to spend a little more. A lens shouldn't be seen as an investment... it's not. Rather, it's an asset. You want your assets to retain value, and your assets that do retain value can be sold whenever you want to cash in on the value of that asset. If I buy a brand-new well reviewed lens for $1400 today (and let's say that's its fair market value), I can turn around and sell that lens for 75%+ what I paid in 3-4 years from now potentially. Some people can even get more than 75%, and some people can wait longer than 3-4 years before they sell at that high return rate.

If you're not in the market for the lens immediately, wait to see what Sigma drops on the market. They've officially announced two different 150-600mm lenses. If you're in the market for a lens right now, and you're on a budget, I just don't see how you can go wrong with a Tamron 150-600. The performance at 600mm is still very good, a step up from your 18-200mm at 200mm in terms of sharpness for sure (remember if you view an image on something like Pixelpeeper.com, only pay attention to shots at 1/1000 of a second or quicker, otherwise you can't be even remotely certain of whether lack of sharpness is due to the lens or the user).

I personally want to purchase the Tamron 150-600mm, I just don't have the cash available. I own the Nikon 70-300 VR.

Do note if you get a birding lens, you'll likely want to have a tripod or a monopod.

dannylightning · Sep 19, 2014

this is my problem, i do not make a lot of money, spending say 1000 USD on a lens is a huge amount of money, i cant really justify spending the money on a high end lens, i could probably go up to 1500.00 but that is going to be the maximum, i am not 100% sure a prime lens is something i want, i notice i like to zoom in and out often when shooting, so a fixed 500 or 600mm would probably be a bad choice.

i have seen some very experienced photographers say that tamron lens is very good, but say its still a pretty good step down form the image quality they were getting from a 400mm canon lens as far as sharpness and that you would be much better with the canon lens, to me that means its descent but not great so i am a little iffy about that.

i like to plan ahead, so i am trying to do my research and now and figure out what i am going to be best off with zoom wise and what i think i might be happy with, that way i can take my time and narrow it down to a few choices, i am looking forward to seeing reviews and pics from the new sigma lenses. i have seen quite a few amazing images that have been shot on sigma lenses, but i do not think the current sigma lens that goes up to 500mm will cut the cake for me. maybe one of the new ones will, hopefully they will be reasonably priced and produce good sharp images.

the 18-200 is the perfect lens for every day use IMO. but i do want something that will get me close to those far aways objects/animals and i do not have the money to buy a high end lens.

i have a tripod, ill try not use it though, unless i am shooting at night, but if i need to i need to.