I used a £1700 lens on a Nikon D50 I picked up for £80 for quite some time a few years ago, I always put new glass far above the need for a 'better' camera.

Unless you have a serious/professional need for a particular feature there really isn't a huge amount between bodies in my opinion.

Quite a few colleagues have purchased DSLRs in the past few years and were amazed by the kit lens, I persuaded a few to spend £100 on a 50mm 1.8...they could not believe the step up in quality and being able to throw backgrounds out of focus for that 'professional look' (their words!) was a revelation.

Rather have a good lens on an average camera than a average lens on a good camera


What is an average camera anyhow? Low megapixels? Poorer AF?
You may find that a heavy lens feels out of balance with a smaller camera body, but I wouldn't let that put you off hugely.



As Mr Carter put it: "yes"

Because digital cameras have improved so much over the last several years pretty much any lens/camera combination from back then fits this description surely.

so first search should be the lowest aperture, to gain maximum light (etc)...?

It's a good start; you can never have too much light. It means you have extra exposure capability if you find yourself in a corner, or you can exploit the shallower DOF.

Also, fast glass is usually expensive glass and all else being equal, it means that a 'fast' lens is likely to be very good elsewhere in the range - which is where you'll usually use it.

The proviso, other than cost, is that fast lenses are not at their best optically when wide open, and whilst f2.8 on a zoom is useable, personally I find that f1.4 is too shallow.

Hi Toby,

Similar position to you. I also have a D3100 and looking for a lense with a bit of reach. I picked up the Nikon magazine, last months issue if i remember correctly. They did a comparison of the zoom lense upgrades.

Essentially it came down to the 70-300mm Nikon FX zoom lense being the best. The 55-200 and 55-300 being a bit average. The only downside is the cost of the 70-300, its about £420 according to them. Its rather expensive but can be picked up second hand in great condition, with a years warranty for about 300. I would rather spend that on a second hand lense than an average brand new zoom. It will be my next purchase.

Here are the results and their recommendations:-
1. Nikon Af-S 70-300 F4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR £420 approx
2. Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DI VC USD £300 approx
3. Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 DG OS £290 approx

Hope this helps.

I regularly lend one of my lenses to a friend to get better quality images, and the lens in question is the 70/200 f2.8. I have about nine lenses in all but of the lot this is by far the most usable, be it portrait or sport when used in conjunction with a teleconverter. Some lenses are too heavy to be lugged around, some highly specific, but the 70/200 is by far and away my best lens - along with the 12/24 that is. Anyone can take a photo, but to get that special portrait, for example, with great bokeh, you need fast (and sadly expensive) glass. There is no other option.