Newbie with a Nikon d3100, manual focus lenses
Discussion
Greetings,
Having lurked on here for the past few weeks and pored over the starter DSLR threads for hours, I've finally taken the plunge and have bought a Nikon d3100 to get me started.
I only bought the thing on Monday and I'm already eyeing up:
Hama star 63 tripod for night sky shots
Lowepro slingshot
Remote trigger
Battery grip
Assortment of lenses
Why didn't anyone warn this was going to bleed my bank balance dry?
Anyway, I've been mulling over a 70-300mm lens with macro as I'm hitting the limits of the 55mm already and really would like to do some garden wildlife shots.
Budget is tight at the moment so I'm torn between these options on ebay:
Buy now Sigma/Tamron 70-300mm manual focus (£70)
or saving up for Nikkor 55-300 VR autofocus (£200)
Question for the more experienced people here is: Will a manual focus lens be ok for what I want to do (without a tripod), or will the results be so shaky and blurry that it will be a waste of money and I should save up for the Nikkor VR?
And does the same principle apply to 35mm/50mm prime lenses too?
Thanks for any sage advice in advance.
Having lurked on here for the past few weeks and pored over the starter DSLR threads for hours, I've finally taken the plunge and have bought a Nikon d3100 to get me started.
I only bought the thing on Monday and I'm already eyeing up:
Hama star 63 tripod for night sky shots
Lowepro slingshot
Remote trigger
Battery grip
Assortment of lenses
Why didn't anyone warn this was going to bleed my bank balance dry?
Anyway, I've been mulling over a 70-300mm lens with macro as I'm hitting the limits of the 55mm already and really would like to do some garden wildlife shots.
Budget is tight at the moment so I'm torn between these options on ebay:
Buy now Sigma/Tamron 70-300mm manual focus (£70)
or saving up for Nikkor 55-300 VR autofocus (£200)
Question for the more experienced people here is: Will a manual focus lens be ok for what I want to do (without a tripod), or will the results be so shaky and blurry that it will be a waste of money and I should save up for the Nikkor VR?
And does the same principle apply to 35mm/50mm prime lenses too?
Thanks for any sage advice in advance.
Edited by eltawater on Thursday 12th April 09:02
Ooof! AF v MF choices - difficult call!
You know, once upon a time we only had MF?
Without you understanding whether your techniques are going to develop over time, it's easy to get caught up with AF is best.
For good macro, longer focal length, manual focus, but securely anchored on a tripod would always be my preference over VR. VR can be useful, but less so the closer the subject.
For wide angle - to normal focal lengths, AF can be less useful than pre-focussing on hyper focal length (as much depth of field as possible for landscape to reportage-style street photography (shooting from the hip!))
If you're on a budget, though, you will find you can buy and sell (via the likes of Fleabay) and not necessarily be hugely out of pocket if the experience is not so good!
You know, once upon a time we only had MF?
Without you understanding whether your techniques are going to develop over time, it's easy to get caught up with AF is best.
For good macro, longer focal length, manual focus, but securely anchored on a tripod would always be my preference over VR. VR can be useful, but less so the closer the subject.
For wide angle - to normal focal lengths, AF can be less useful than pre-focussing on hyper focal length (as much depth of field as possible for landscape to reportage-style street photography (shooting from the hip!))
If you're on a budget, though, you will find you can buy and sell (via the likes of Fleabay) and not necessarily be hugely out of pocket if the experience is not so good!
My first purchase was the Nikon 55-200 lens and I find it adequate for what I need. If I want anything a bit closer (which is rather rare) I just crop in camera. Obviously your needs may be different but it's worth testing them out. At the full 200 I find it difficult sometimes to get a decent shot. God knows what it must be like at 300.
Amazon are selling these for around £120 so it splits the difference in what you're looking for.
Amazon are selling these for around £120 so it splits the difference in what you're looking for.
In the good old days of SLR cameras and manual focus lenses
the viewing screens were designed to facilitate quick and accurate manual focusing:
Not only that but unless you have a Full Frame DSLR (yours isn't) the optical viewfinder
is smaller than SLRs from the good old days, hence making the job of manual focus even harder.
the viewing screens were designed to facilitate quick and accurate manual focusing:
Not only that but unless you have a Full Frame DSLR (yours isn't) the optical viewfinder
is smaller than SLRs from the good old days, hence making the job of manual focus even harder.
Elderly said:
In the good old days of SLR cameras and manual focus lenses
the viewing screens were designed to facilitate quick and accurate manual focusing:
Not only that but unless you have a Full Frame DSLR (yours isn't) the optical viewfinder
is smaller than SLRs from the good old days, hence making the job of manual focus even harder.
Very good points - some of the newer Nikons, but probably not the smaller models, are still supplied with various screens (just sold my D2X with an additional screen as originally supplied)the viewing screens were designed to facilitate quick and accurate manual focusing:
Not only that but unless you have a Full Frame DSLR (yours isn't) the optical viewfinder
is smaller than SLRs from the good old days, hence making the job of manual focus even harder.
You can also get magnifying eyepiece - which I specifically got for the D2X viewfinder (the DK-17M) - but all the latest bodies have Live View to get round this, don't they!
Elderly said:
K12beano said:
- but all the latest bodies have Live View to get round this, don't they!
I'm not talking from direct experience here but I believe that focusing via live view on most DSLRs is fairly slow.Well I see it this way. You can save money and get a lens that will be more difficult to use, with lower optical quality - so you won't like it and know it's a compromise, or you can save up and get the one you really want, which will be better and also easier/faster to use. And the same is true of all lenses - accepting you pay a small premium for the brand, the more you pay, the better it will be. And so you have to think 'What do I want here, the best results I can get at my level of experience, or as much money unspent as possible?' And as said, manual focusing through a small VF is not easy.
Focus is one thing but 'shaky' is down to shutter speed - shooting in daylight at 300mm is perfectly achievable without VR so that is one extra you probably don't *need*, but is a useful toy to have in the box when conditions are poorer.
Focus is one thing but 'shaky' is down to shutter speed - shooting in daylight at 300mm is perfectly achievable without VR so that is one extra you probably don't *need*, but is a useful toy to have in the box when conditions are poorer.
Try and back off any snap purchase. What's the current lens you have - try using it in MF mode. Go out for a long walk or even a whole day and discipline yourself not to switch AF on. What are you shooting now you've actually got the camera?
Find someone with a lens in the range you're considering for a borrow-for-a-beer tryout. (Whereabouts are you?)
Coming back to this thread again makes me realise that there's nothing better than gaining first-hand experience. So these are just my thoughts..... ...from a few weeks on here you'll realise there are plenty of varying opinions though!
Find someone with a lens in the range you're considering for a borrow-for-a-beer tryout. (Whereabouts are you?)
Coming back to this thread again makes me realise that there's nothing better than gaining first-hand experience. So these are just my thoughts..... ...from a few weeks on here you'll realise there are plenty of varying opinions though!
eltawater said:
....... lurked on here for the past few weeks ..........
Why didn't anyone warn this was going to bleed my bank balance dry?
It's taken me years to realise that when I log on to my bank account it allows me to "rename" or give a "nick-name" to my account. I now call it "Titanic"Why didn't anyone warn this was going to bleed my bank balance dry?
You can use live view to manually focus but its tricky at best.
You can either do it viewing the whole scene or at 5* or 10* magnification, either way isnt easy and wont be 'stable' either so you will have to rack up the shutter speeds more.
Its not impossible to manual focus this kind of lens but dont expect a high keeper rate.
You can either do it viewing the whole scene or at 5* or 10* magnification, either way isnt easy and wont be 'stable' either so you will have to rack up the shutter speeds more.
Its not impossible to manual focus this kind of lens but dont expect a high keeper rate.
K12beano said:
What's the current lens you have - try using it in MF mode. Go out for a long walk or even a whole day and discipline yourself not to switch AF on.
The only issue with this is that AF lenses (particularly lower-end ones I'd guess) are generally hideous to use in MF mode, they don't really give you a proper idea of what using a proper MF lens is like.I use loads of manual lenses on my D2H, and generally I don't find it too much of a problem (I would if I was paying for film costs though
). Don't really do much wildlife stuff though, can see it could be quite challenging at times.RobDickinson said:
You can use live view to manually focus but its tricky at best.
You can either do it viewing the whole scene or at 5* or 10* magnification, either way isnt easy and wont be 'stable' either so you will have to rack up the shutter speeds more.
Its not impossible to manual focus this kind of lens but dont expect a high keeper rate.
Are the screen resolutions good enough on these to do that? You can either do it viewing the whole scene or at 5* or 10* magnification, either way isnt easy and wont be 'stable' either so you will have to rack up the shutter speeds more.
Its not impossible to manual focus this kind of lens but dont expect a high keeper rate.
Several posters are quite right, there's certainly an element of "what-if" self doubt in me about going for a cheaper manual lens as opposed to a more expensive auto-focus lens. As this is supposed to be a "casual" hobby, I have to trade that off against the £210 price 
I have considered the 55-200mm option, but I'm slightly concerned that the range won't be nearly as good as I'm expecting, and I'll be hankering after the 300mm again I did pop into Bedford Jessops earlier to have a look but all lenses are within cabinets and the assistants didn't really look like they were in the mood for me to try them out....
I suppose what I'm after is the ability to do this sort of thing. The current 18-55mm lens means I can't get anywhere near the sods without frightening them away
Must. Stay. Away. From. Ebay.......
I have considered the 55-200mm option, but I'm slightly concerned that the range won't be nearly as good as I'm expecting, and I'll be hankering after the 300mm again
I did pop into Bedford Jessops earlier to have a look but all lenses are within cabinets and the assistants didn't really look like they were in the mood for me to try them out....I suppose what I'm after is the ability to do this sort of thing. The current 18-55mm lens means I can't get anywhere near the sods without frightening them away
Must. Stay. Away. From. Ebay.......
Edited by eltawater on Thursday 12th April 14:42
eltawater said:
These are crops from the 100% source image with AF/VR off, and manually focused by viewfinder.
Well they look fine to me. Maybe the problem to consider is the extra 'wobble' introduced when using a longer lens due to the greater magnification - just keep an eye that the shutter speed doesn't fall too low, usually dealt with by larger aperture or higher ISO. eltawater said:
Several posters are quite right, there's certainly an element of "what-if" self doubt in me about going for a cheaper manual lens as opposed to a more expensive auto-focus lens. As this is supposed to be a "casual" hobby, I have to trade that off against the £210 price
Bear in mind that lenses hold their value pretty well - if you ever decided you needed the money for something more important you'd get much of it back on eBay etc.eltawater said:
I suppose what I'm after is the ability to do this sort of thing. The current 18-55mm lens means I can't get anywhere near the sods without frightening them away
You could always shoot at 200mm and crop to give you the same framing as from a 300mm; you just lose some resolution.Take this with the pinch of that deserves as we all have our own preference but I personally couldn't live with a manual focus telephoto. I realise that we were all using manual focus for everything only a few years ago, but AF has come along now and is so much better for far off moving objects (which I guess is what you're likely to be shooting). I would rather use a cheap AF Tamron 70-300 for £80 than just about any manual offering.
I started off with a basic Tamron 70-300 and very rapidly moved to a Nikon 70-300 VR. The Tamron is ok for very occasional use but if you use it a lot, the slow AF and softness wide open will soon drive you nuts. Personally, I would either buy the Nikon 55-200 VR, which is a pretty decent lens and probably offers the best value for money of any telephoto I can think of. If you want 300mm though, I would be inclined to save a little more and go for the 70-300 VR. It'll cost you £275 used, but unless you get really serious, you'll never need to buy another tele zoom, even if you go full frame. The IQ is truly excellent. It's almost certainly the best 'consumer' tele photo that remains small and light enough to carry. After this, things start getting very heavy and very expensive exponentially.
It's maybe not what you want to hear (or maybe not what your bank manager wants to hear!) but it always seems cheaper in the long run to buy the lens that you want rather than a stop gap measure. I've learnt the hard way and wasted a lot of money in the process.
By the way, I bought a job lot of gear the other day and a Lowepro slingshot bag was included that I don't really need (according to my wife, 4 camera bags is more than enough). I think it was the 200 version. If you're interested in it, I'm sure I could let it go for a reasonable price.
I started off with a basic Tamron 70-300 and very rapidly moved to a Nikon 70-300 VR. The Tamron is ok for very occasional use but if you use it a lot, the slow AF and softness wide open will soon drive you nuts. Personally, I would either buy the Nikon 55-200 VR, which is a pretty decent lens and probably offers the best value for money of any telephoto I can think of. If you want 300mm though, I would be inclined to save a little more and go for the 70-300 VR. It'll cost you £275 used, but unless you get really serious, you'll never need to buy another tele zoom, even if you go full frame. The IQ is truly excellent. It's almost certainly the best 'consumer' tele photo that remains small and light enough to carry. After this, things start getting very heavy and very expensive exponentially.
It's maybe not what you want to hear (or maybe not what your bank manager wants to hear!) but it always seems cheaper in the long run to buy the lens that you want rather than a stop gap measure. I've learnt the hard way and wasted a lot of money in the process.
By the way, I bought a job lot of gear the other day and a Lowepro slingshot bag was included that I don't really need (according to my wife, 4 camera bags is more than enough). I think it was the 200 version. If you're interested in it, I'm sure I could let it go for a reasonable price.
Gad-Westy: You have mail
I took the opportunity today to compare the Nikon 55-200 VR and the Nikon 55-300 VR. I was disappointed to find the 200mm falling short of my expectations for a telephoto, but the range on the 300mm was exactly as I expected it to be. Turning off VR and autofocus rendered everything horribly wobbly, so it looks like they're a must have feature for my hands.
Taking on board everyone's advice, I'm going to skip buying the cheaper tamron and save up the pennies for a few months before in the 55-300VR.
Thanks again everyone.
I took the opportunity today to compare the Nikon 55-200 VR and the Nikon 55-300 VR. I was disappointed to find the 200mm falling short of my expectations for a telephoto, but the range on the 300mm was exactly as I expected it to be. Turning off VR and autofocus rendered everything horribly wobbly, so it looks like they're a must have feature for my hands.
Taking on board everyone's advice, I'm going to skip buying the cheaper tamron and save up the pennies for a few months before in the 55-300VR.
Thanks again everyone.
eltawater said:
Gad-Westy: You have mail
I took the opportunity today to compare the Nikon 55-200 VR and the Nikon 55-300 VR. I was disappointed to find the 200mm falling short of my expectations for a telephoto, but the range on the 300mm was exactly as I expected it to be. Turning off VR and autofocus rendered everything horribly wobbly, so it looks like they're a must have feature for my hands.
Taking on board everyone's advice, I'm going to skip buying the cheaper tamron and save up the pennies for a few months before in the 55-300VR.
Thanks again everyone.
Sent a reply to your email. Turns out mine is the 102AW. Judging by another thread it looks like Chopper602 has a 200 for sale so maybe worth dropping him a mail too if that's the one you're after.I took the opportunity today to compare the Nikon 55-200 VR and the Nikon 55-300 VR. I was disappointed to find the 200mm falling short of my expectations for a telephoto, but the range on the 300mm was exactly as I expected it to be. Turning off VR and autofocus rendered everything horribly wobbly, so it looks like they're a must have feature for my hands.
Taking on board everyone's advice, I'm going to skip buying the cheaper tamron and save up the pennies for a few months before in the 55-300VR.
Thanks again everyone.
By the way, just remembered this thread of James' last month that's worth a read.
http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=1124417
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff