Nikon Lenses - Sanity check before purchase

[Ray Singh]

I have a Nikon D40 and it came with a 18mm to 55mm lens. I mainly use the camera to take pictures of my children at school plays etc and find that the zoom is not quite enough.

I am toying with a new lens and cant afford a 18mm to 200mm/300mm lens. However, the 55mm to 200mm lens seems affordable (£120 ish). I am keen to buy only Nikon lenses and not goto Tamron or Sigma.

What would you - the voices of knowledge advise?

Should I go for the 55-200 or 55-300? Is VR a must?

Cheers

[Kermit power]

Why do you only want Nikon lenses? There are some very decent third party lenses out there, and you're not paying the Nikon premium for them.

[ian in lancs]

probably the 200mm one. Handholding a 300mm (actually a 450mm on a crop) will be very hard in the low light of a school play. The 200mm (300mm) should have enough reach. It is a good lens.

[condor]

I have a few years old Nikon D40 with the 18-55 lens that cost about £250.
My biggest waste of money was spending about £400 on a 50ish -300mm Nikon lens which I've barely used. Reasons why, lens bought for motorsport use...too heavy, too much hassle changing lens and possibility of getting 'dust' in.

[Ray Singh]

Thanks for the replies so far.

Condor - would you consider selling the 50 - 300? If so, PM me a price.

In answer to the other questions - I want to stick with Nikon Lenses if possible. I just dont like Sigma or Tamron products.

[The Jolly Todger]

I would say VR is a must if you're handholding and shooting in low light although remember it will not help if the subject is moving.

[Whitean3]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with Tamron lenses- we have a D7000 with an 18-270 or 300 (memory escapes me right now) and it takes much better pictures than a similar Nikon lens that went before it.

[andy-xr]

That 55-200 has weird colours, I cant get on with mine at all. You'd be better putting a bit more money to a 70-300 instead, it's cleaner, much better with sharpness and coour, especially if you're shooting jpeg

Just for info, the sharpest lens I have is a Tamron 90mm. Nothing else I've got comes close to it

[9.3]

andy-xr said:

That 55-200 has weird colours, I cant get on with mine at all. You'd be better putting a bit more money to a 70-300 instead, it's cleaner, much better with sharpness and coour, especially if you're shooting jpeg

Au contraire, my 55-200VR is bitingly sharp and produces beautiful colours. Luck of the draw I suppose.

[condor]

Ray Singh said:

Thanks for the replies so far.

Condor - would you consider selling the 50 - 300? If so, PM me a price.

In answer to the other questions - I want to stick with Nikon Lenses if possible. I just dont like Sigma or Tamron products.

No - it's not for sale. The lens is there if I ever want to use it, I just haven't made proper use of it yet.

[anonymous-user]

Kermit power said:

Why do you only want Nikon lenses? There are some very decent third party lenses out there, and you're not paying the Nikon premium for them.

This man is correct...

As an example the Tokina 11-16mm positively poops all over the equivalent Nikon wide angle in both build quality and image quality.

But note Kermit said 'some', therefore choose 3rd part lenses carefully and you can end up with a great one.

[The Jolly Todger]

NinjaPower said:

As an example the Tokina 11-16mm positively poops all over the equivalent Nikon wide angle in both build quality and image quality.

Having recently demoed them both, I would say this is very debatable, both good lenses but the Nikon 10-24mm was a clear winner for me.

The fact remains that there are 3rd party lenses that are very good (the Tokina above is one of them).

[cornet]

Unless your children's school plays are very well lit then you will struggle to get good shots with either of those.

Personally I'd save some more money and get the 70-300 VR.
Cracking lens for the money - should be able to pick one up for around £300 2nd hand with warranty I would have thought.

You'll still suffer from light issues though.