Help with Lens (novice, beware)

[boxst]

I bought my wife a Nikon D5300 as a present a few months ago and it came with an 18-55mm lens. I know absolutely nothing about cameras, but apparently that is a bad general purpose lens.

As Christmas is coming I would like to buy a 'proper' lens but have no idea where to start. Is this good? http://www.johnlewis.com/nikon-dx-55-300mm-f-4-5-5...

Any suggestions greatly received.

Thanks,

Steve

[RobinOakapple]

What sort of photography do you want to do? Lenses vary in quality and fitness for purpose, we would need to know your budget AND your purpose.

[fido]

I bought a Canon 18-55 IS as a spare lens and it was pretty good - assume the Nikon version is similar. Ditto, depends what you want to do with it - I only use Leica/Zeiss nowadays so everything doesn't look as good, but I could get super pictures with the 18-55 when I had a crop DSLR.

[steveatesh]

boxst said:

I bought my wife a Nikon D5300 as a present a few months ago and it came with an 18-55mm lens. I know absolutely nothing about cameras, but apparently that is a bad general purpose lens.

As Christmas is coming I would like to buy a 'proper' lens but have no idea where to start. Is this good? http://www.johnlewis.com/nikon-dx-55-300mm-f-4-5-5...

Any suggestions greatly received.

Thanks,

Steve

Hi, first consider the previous responses, what does your wife use her camera for.
However, I can say that I have the 55-200 MM version of that lens and it is very soft, images lack crispness in other words.

I bought the 18-140mm Nikon lens and the difference is night and day with very sharp images being the norm (providing I've done everything's no right with it of course!)

This lens is a general purpose walk around, I've use it for landscapes, objects, and even some portrait shots. The cheapest I found it was HDEW cameras, it was around £205 when I bought it. Yes it does not have the reach of the one you mention but is likely to be much sharper. It's fast to focus too.

WhatEver you do read some reviews on your chosen lens, there are many about and you will get ideas of their performance.

[dogbucket]

18-140 is a great lens and not too expensive.

You can get into fast primes and large aperture zooms, but for a casual user a bit ott.

[boxst]

Thank you for the replies. Good question on what she is going to use it for.

I think the main complaint was that it didn't zoom very well, so great for near shots.

Does that help?

[Simpo Two]

boxst said:

Thank you for the replies. Good question on what she is going to use it for.

I think the main complaint was that it didn't zoom very well, so great for near shots.

Does that help?

If by zoom she means telephoto, then she could keep the 18-55mm for wide-angle and 'normal' photos, and have a telephoto zoom, eg a 70-300mm, for things further away.

[JatHanspal]

If she is just getting into photography. I would suggest a 50mm f1.8 is a great lens to learn how to take photos with. Gives you a wide aperture to help learn how to control depth of field. Makes you think about composition as you cannot zoom with it. Great for learning manual camera control.

Also its most probably below £100 new.

[Nigel_O]

I found the kit lens with the Nikon D5200 was pretty good - (I assume its the same with the D5300) - it's decently crisp, has VR and seems solidly-made

I've now gone full-frame and upgraded my lenses to a 50mm f1.4 prime and a 70-200 f2.8, but these weren't cheap.

Now that we've found that its some extra reach that's required, the next question must be what is the intended budget?

FWIW, I found that the Nikon lens reviews on Ken Rockwell's website were very useful

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

[boxst]

Budget is few hundred pounds -- which having just researched the lens you mentioned in no-where near enough

[Dan_1981]

Didn't zoom very well or didn't zoom very far?

[boxst]

Dan_1981 said:

Didn't zoom very well or didn't zoom very far?

Far.

[Simpo Two]

boxst said:

Budget is few hundred pounds -- which having just researched the lens you mentioned in no-where near enough

It will get the well-respected Nikon 70-300mm VR: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-70-300-4-5-5-6G...

[Dan_1981]

boxst said:

Dan_1981 said:

Didn't zoom very well or didn't zoom very far?

Far.

The 55-300 in your original post will solve that issue - it's not super quick but it's not awful either - it gets positive reviews too.

I've got one and am quite happy with it, but i'm just an enthusiastic amateur!

These were taken with it.....

Touring Cars - Donington by Dan_1981, on Flickr

BTCC Donington by Dan_1981, on Flickr

DSC_0058 by Dan_1981, on Flickr

[andy-xr]

She wants more zoom

There's two ways to get this, actually there's 3, but lets assume running up to the thing you're wanting to photograph isn't a winner

She can either buy another lens that goes from 55mm to say 200 or 300mm and swap and change between that and the 18-55, or she (i.e. you) can buy a superzoom that goes from 18-220 or 20'ish to 300mm

Superzooms generally don't have particularly good image quality (the 18-55 is actually pretty good at overall image quality) because there's a trade off between the ability of the glass inside the lens to get good light, good build quality and bounce the light into the camera in as good a way. A prime lens (fixed focal length, 35/50/85/135mm) is generally considered as pretty good image quality and many photographers have these. They're a fixed length though, so taking photos of things up close and further away gets trickier.

If she's OK with trading off a bit of overall image quality, then this would work; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-18-200mm...

Lenses are generally good bargains second hand, you'll find them on eBay or on forums, just make sure you get a boxed one

ETA - sorry, hadn't finished before pressing submit. The other option would be a 70-300, and just swap the lenses as and when. don't bother with the 55-200, it's st

Edited by andy-xr on Friday 11th December 14:50

[Nigel_O]

an alternative if you're brave enough (or can ask someone who is into these things) is to look for a secondhand Sigma 50-500

I've now bought two of these - both from Gumtree - first one was a non optically-stabilised version - cost under £400 and was in very good condition. The second was the OS version and had never been fitted to a body - cost £600

Whilst not in the same league as Nikkor lenses, its a decent lens with a huge reach (750mm equivalent on a D5300), certainly enough to fill the frame with an F1 car, even from the back of the grandstands at Silverstone (which are LONG way from the track....)

Would need a monopod though - its not exactly lighweight.

That said, my eldest son has a D7100 and his shots (cropped) through a 55-300 were as good and often better than mine through the Sigma 50-500 (The Sigma isn't amazing at full focal length - seems best at 250-400)

[BoredNerd]

Dan_1981 said:

boxst said:

Dan_1981 said:

Didn't zoom very well or didn't zoom very far?

Far.

The 55-300 in your original post will solve that issue - it's not super quick but it's not awful either - it gets positive reviews too.

I've got one and am quite happy with it, but i'm just an enthusiastic amateur!

These were taken with it.....

Touring Cars - Donington by Dan_1981, on Flickr

BTCC Donington by Dan_1981, on Flickr

DSC_0058 by Dan_1981, on Flickr

What settings did you use for that moon?! That's a great shot!

The others are good, too! But that moon!!! ; )

[LC2]

Nigel_O said:

an alternative if you're brave enough (or can ask someone who is into these things) is to look for a secondhand Sigma 50-500

Would need a monopod though - its not exactly lighweight.

Understatement of the year...
The Sigma 50-500 isn't known as the Bigma for nothing.
It weighs in at 1.96KG

I've the slightly lighter 150-500 sigma and it's not a general purpose zoom, which was what was mentioned in the OP.
Of course, if the OP's wife wants something for airshows, or doesn't mind trudging around with a squaddies pack on her back, then the bigma is a decent enough lens (albeit there are newer beasties out there covering this range better these days).

[gck303]

boxst said:

I know absolutely nothing about cameras, but apparently that is a bad general purpose lens.

It is an excellent general purpose lens. That is why Nikon make millions of them. It is inexpensive, light, moderately fast, sharp and has plenty contrast.

I must enquire, to who told you this?

Sure, there are many 'better' lenses. But all are either [much] more expensive, or more specialist.

Long zooms are popular, and many people have either an 18-200 or 18-300 lens. These are more convenient, but that does not mean better.

I have a Nikon 18-200 zoom, but this is used in a situation where a wide zoom capability is much more important than the image quality. I did have the 18-55, but needed a wider zoom.

[gck303]

JatHanspal said:

If she is just getting into photography. I would suggest a 50mm f1.8 is a great lens to learn how to take photos with. Gives you a wide aperture to help learn how to control depth of field. Makes you think about composition as you cannot zoom with it. Great for learning manual camera control.

Also its most probably below £100 new.

I very much agree with this.

If you are using a DX camera (non full frame), then you might want to consider the f1.8 35mm.