Hi,
I do have a 18-55 Lens that came with my D5000 body and now I plan to have a second lens too.Can anyone suggest which will be the best buy?I usually do some outdoor wildlife photography and some birds and flowers too..
Regards
Venugopal
Need a second lens
(19 posts) (12 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Get the 16-85mm or the 18-200mm both are great general purpose lenses. Or if you're on a very tight budget then the 55-200mm will compliment your kit lens nicely. It all really depends on your budget and whether you might want to go full frame in the future since these lenses are all DX and not FX.
Welcome to the forum venuiyer and get ready to read a lot of different suggestions :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually id backup Niko on the 18-200, its a nice all around lens and if i only go on vacation to relax, i only bring this one lens, its actually quite nice.
However you don't state anything about how big your budget is?.
and yes, get ready to be stormed by suggestions=).
Posted 3 years ago # -
LOL ... dyslexia rules ... at a quick glance I read that the subject was: Need a second less
On topic: Depending on your budget, I'd also suggest the 16-85 complemented by the 55-200 VR. The latter isn't of course among the best of telezooms but it is quite good for its price. A much better option would be the 70-200 but that also has a very nice price tag on it. Of course the 18-200 will save you a lot of trouble exchanging lenses and you will get a good overview of which focal lengths you actually use. Though 200mm might be too short for bird photography but that depends on how close you can get to them :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
200 may be too short for birds. But if you can get close to them its ok. I took this with my 12-24 zoom :-) lol
The following were taken with my 18-200 vr nikkor. Its a lovely first lens so that you can find out which focal length you prefer. once you find that out then the big bucks will be needing to be spent. other wise depending on budget the 55-200vr is quite good. (Hey Gentoo.. you like? :-) )
Posted 3 years ago # -
18-200 is a distortion machine, BUT none of what you described as wanting to shoot is especially affected by distortion.
70-300VR is a whole new ballgame compared to the non-VR 70-300, and one just popped up here, used, in minty-fresh condition for $400. It is better @ 200 than the 55-200 is (though about the same in the 70-150 range) and gives you that extra reach for birdies. Well worth the extra weight, IMHO, and FX-future-proof as well (though that argument rarely makes economic sense considering the cost of money and the resale values that Nikon gear maintains.)
You won't miss the 55-70mm range, IMHO.
Posted 3 years ago # -
venuiyer said:
Hi,I do have a 18-55 Lens that came with my D5000 body and now I plan to have a second lens too.Can anyone suggest which will be the best buy?I usually do some outdoor wildlife photography and some birds and flowers too..
Regards
VenugopalWhy are you guys so quick to trow out the lens that he already has, Yes the 18-55 VR is not pro, but it is actual one of the better entry zooms if compared to other brands
Recommended by DpReview and one of the 10 best lenses from our body KR.
So Venugopal has a good DSLR and a good lens to start with and wants to take pics that needs more zoom, the best choice would be the 70-300 VR if money is tight then get the 55-200 VR. Then down the road the 18-55 VR lens could be upgraded to a better choice when you are ready to do soPete
BTW the 70-200 VR does look kind of funny on a smaller body like the D5000 and is somewhat front heavy, also only None Nikon brand Grips are available for the D5000
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hi Soap you beat me to it, just yours used, my choice would be new. And I agree with not liking the 18-200,
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
Advantage of 55-200 over 70-300 (I've mentioned before but OP might not have searched) is it uses the same filters as the 18-55.
IMHO mastering filter usage is important, and if the 55-200 makes this financially more likely I would strongly suggest it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What I have done in regards to filters, I have two groups of filters: Group 1 is 77mm and I have the most filters in this area, I then bought step down filter adapters on ebay to 67mm and 52mm (looks kind of funny to have a 77mm filter on my 50mm F1.8). Then Group 2 is 58mm filters(from Canon days) I use step down to 52mm. I also bought a cheap 77mm rubber lens hood
So if Venugopal is planning to get lenses with 77mm in the future, I would get them in that size and use step down like I did, if the 70-300 is the most lens, then start with 67mm filters
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree, though I have a 52 group, a 67 group, and a 77 group.
That, though, raises the cost of entry. Which is why I mentioned the 55-200, as the lower cost-of-entry product. Rather OP be shooting today than saving for shooting in the future.
Posted 3 years ago # -
But you should see my 50mm F1.8 with 77mm filter and that large rubber hood, you can barely see the lens, I don't hardly ever use it that way. I have a 58mm PL that I use on that lens
Pete
And back to the thread, both 55-200 VR and 70-300 VR lenses are great choices and the 67 to 52mm adapter is less that $5 on ebay, maybe less used for you Soap
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ya know - I don't think I've every bought a step-up ring used. ;) Not even when buying whole collections. That's odd now that you mention it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
300 is an absolute minimum for birds on DX, unless you're setting up a blind or shooting a feeder.
The 70-300VR is the least-expensive Nikkor I would recommend for bird shooting. It's good for bird identification, but with unusual exceptions, those dramatic closeups with great detail typically don't come with a 70-300mm lens.
The next step up would be the 80-400 (I'm waiting for an anticipated replacement with faster autofocus or a new 400 f/5.6 AF-S) or the 300mm f/4.
From there, it's over-$5000 lenses in the Nikon line.
Don't expect a 200mm lens to have enough reach for most bird shooting. You'll get twice as many pixels on your subject with the 70-300.
Good luck and enjoy!
Posted 3 years ago # -
It very much depends on how much are you willing to spend.
As far as I could say 70-300 VRii is probably the most useful one you could get in addition to your 18-55 especially if you are after wild life and birds, and I would get Nikon NC and Hoya CPL filters to go with it. 70-200 VR + TC is better choice but for much more money. 55-200 is an lower cost option but IQ will suffer.
On the other hand if you are after insects, faces or general macro I would consider new 85 DX macro, really sharp and useful ...Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree the 18-200mm VR is a wonderful lens. Don't bother with the newer VR II. You might also want to consider the reasonably priced 70-300mm VR (like others have mentioned) or an 80-200mm ED pushpull lens. This 80-200 ED lens is a great deal at around $350 (used) and was my first telephoto lens. Only problem is is focuses a little slow, but for stationary birds or other wildlife it should be decent.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually, kanuck, the 80-200 won't focus at all. He has a D5000 without the blasted motor!
I agree with the others that have mentioned the 55-200 or the 70-300. They should cover your needs nicely.
Maybe the 80-400. Maybe.
Posted 3 years ago # -
lol the 80-400 wont focus either :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
the 70-300mm is a decent lens and has a great range for nature shots.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
