I recently bought a D5100 w/the kit lens (probably would have been best to buy just the body but too late now). My question is: if I can buy ONE other lens, what would be a good choice? Info re me: amateur, take landscape and animal photos or general interest when I travel; like to do some close-ups such as architectural features of a building, partial scenes, chiaroscuro studies, etc. Thanks in advance.
Thank you very much; my kit lens is 18-55 as you suggest. Does that mean I should avoid a zoom lens that begins at 55 or does it matter? Any brand come to mind, in case I can't afford a Nikon lens? Do you think it "safe" to buy such a lens used or would that be foolish?
>Thank you very much; my kit lens is 18-55 as you suggest. >Does that mean I should avoid a zoom lens that begins at 55 or >does it matter? Any brand come to mind, in case I can't afford >a Nikon lens? Do you think it "safe" to buy such a >lens used or would that be foolish? > >Mary
The 70-300 is a very good lens - but it's a big FX lens, so for a beginner it might be overkill.
The 55-200 is designed to compliment the 18-55 you already have, even taking the same filters and lens cap size, and is very sharp, inexpensive, and small and lightweight. When I travel light, I take the 18-55 and 55-200, and two primes (35 f/1.8 DX and 50 f/1.4 AI), and that's it, and they all take the same 52 mm filters.
I'd get the 55-200 Nikon, which is very inexpensive, rather than go to a third party lens that reaches to 300 mm.
A note under this lens says: "DX-Nikkor lenses are engineered and optimized for use on Nikon DX-format D-SLRs and are designed to cover the smaller image area of the DX sensor. When a DX lens is mounted on an FX-format Nikon D-SLR, the camera's DX-Crop Mode is automatically engaged, introducing a 1.5x magnification (cropping) factor."
Great, thanks, especially for taking the time to read and answer my questions. There is nothing worse than ordering this type of item to find out it was either not compatible or a different choice would have been better. The fact that the other lens was an FX lens was not mentioned when I spoke to the rep at the camera store. I'm so glad I didn't act on it.
Tue 16-Apr-13 10:00 PM | edited Wed 17-Apr-13 12:14 AM by MaryMR
Quick second reply: that "Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens" is listed at the photo store web site as follows: "Format Compatibility: Nikon FX/35mm Film and Nikon DX"
So perhaps the salesperson wasn't too far off after all. My D5100 is a DX.
The Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is fully compatible with All Nikon FX and DX bodies including the D5100. As I wrote above, it has a much better build quality than either version of the 55-200mm or the 55-300mm VR. The 70-300mm has a metal mount, both versions of the 55-200mm have a plastic mount.
The 70-300mm being an FX lens will also vignette less in the corners than either version of the 55-200mm or the 55-300mm VR.
>Hi Mary, > >The Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is fully >compatible with All Nikon FX and DX bodies including the >D5100. >As I wrote above, it has a much better build quality than >either version of the 55-200mm or the 55-300mm VR. >The 70-300mm has a metal mount, both versions of the 55-200mm >have a plastic mount. >The front element on both versions of the 55-200mm and the >55-300mm rotate when focusing making it very difficult to use >a Circular Polarizer. The front element on the 70-300mm >doesn't rotate. >The 70-300mm being an FX lens will also vignette less in the >corners than either version of the 55-200mm or the 55-300mm >VR.
The front element of the 55-200 does not rotate in either version.
>Quick second reply: that "Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR >70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens" is listed >at the photo store web site as follows: "Format >Compatibility: Nikon FX/35mm Film and Nikon DX" > >So perhaps the salesperson wasn't too far off after all. My >D5100 is a DX. > >Mary
For reference, FX lenses make images large enough for film or FX digital cameras. Since the DX digital cameras take a smaller, central portion of an FX/film image, all FX lenses work fine on DX cameras - they're just bigger than necessary.
How does one go about finding a Lens truly designed a DX camera. All I ever see is for example all of the 85mm Lens advertised show in extra fine print effective size is 135mm for DX camera The only true lens I've seen for DX camera (in my case is D3200 is the 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lens. I have the 10-24 which I am glad I purchased I am not sure if it truly 10-24 on my camera, also my 35mm F/1.4 I am unsure its 35 MM though I am not going to sell or send back if I could.
It takes from very serious money buy a 800 and not being a Pro is not necessary. The 600 dollar investment in the 3200 was some serious bucks for me. A lot of people here when they speak of there new camera Purchases seem like it chump change to them. To myself $3K is very serious money. Its like I bought a new water jug today.
>How does one go about finding a Lens truly designed a DX >camera. All I ever see is for example all of the 85mm Lens >advertised show in extra fine print effective size is 135mm >for DX camera The only true lens I've seen for DX camera (in >my case is D3200 is the 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lens. I have >the 10-24 which I am glad I purchased I am not sure if it >truly 10-24 on my camera, also my 35mm F/1.4 I am unsure its >35 MM though I am not going to sell or send back if I could.
The focal length of a lens is the focal length of the lens. The focal length doesn't change when you mount an FX or DX lens on an FX or DX body. The only thing that changes is the Angle (or Field) of View. The only difference between FX (All lenses not designated DX) lenses and DX lenses is DX lenses project a smaller image circle at the sensor (film) plane to match the smaller size of a DX sensor. This allows DX lenses to use smaller lens elements than would be required on an FX lens. Therefore DX lenses require significantly less ( very expensive) optical glass making DX lenses smaller, lighter, and significantly less expensive than an equivalent FX lens. The focal length of an 100mm FX lens is exactly the same as the focal length of a 100mm DX lens. The only reason for the "1.5X Crop Factor" is to quantify the difference in Field of View between an image captured with a 35mm film camera or FX digital camera to the An image captured with a DX digital camera.
For example your 10-24mm DX lens has the Equivalent Field of View of a 15-36mm lens mounted on a film or FX body. On an FX body your 35mm f/1.4 has a FoV of 35mm while on your D3200 it has the EFoV of a 52.5mm lens on an FX body.
35mm format (FX) or (Full Frame): 36mm x 24mm is larger than DX format: 23.6mm x 15.6mm. Look at it this way: If you crop the center 24.6mm x 15.6mm area out of a 36mm x 24mm frame you will find that the DX area is the equivalent of 1.5 times the magnification of the 35mm format frame. Thus the 1.5X Crop Factor.
>It takes from very serious money buy a 800 and not being a Pro >is not necessary. The 600 dollar investment in the 3200 was >some serious bucks for me. A lot of people here when they >speak of there new camera Purchases seem like it chump change >to them. To myself $3K is very serious money. Its like I >bought a new water jug today.
$3000.00 is a significant investment for most of us and "Chump Change" to few. That said, with FX it is just the tip of the iceberg. The big investment is in Glass.
That 18-55 mm lens is an excellent lens. Don't underestimate it just because it came with the camera.
In your shoes I would go with the 55-300 mm DX lens with VR. It is an extremely versatile lens.... enough length to let you get in close when you can't be physically close to a subject, but short enough that you can use it for a portrait lens.
Don't blow a lot of money on a huge FX lens. IMHO it is overkill with the D5100 and you will be better off spending money on a quality tripod, a handful of filters, and/or a good bag.
working on it in Middle TN Nikon D3100
35 mm 1.8 Nikkor 18-55 mm Nikkor VR 55-200 mm Nikkor VR 55-300 mm Nikkor VR 150-500 mm Sigma OS MeFoto Road Trip w/Q1 ballhead Feisol CT3471 & Markins M20 ballhead
Wed 17-Apr-13 12:08 AM | edited Wed 17-Apr-13 12:11 AM by MaryMR
Thanks very much. I do like the kit lens, I've taken great photos with it but am still learning. I just wanted to have some variable zoom power for birds, etc. I already have a good Oben tripod, a Nikon circular polarizer filter, and a Tenba bag. I'm just interested in getting one more lens that will let me get photos I may not be able to get with the kit lens...then I'll stop there!
Yes, I'm sure we all said that at some point or other - my wife wishes I would....stop there. If you're looking for reach, the 70-300mm FX will be equivalent to a 105-450mm on a DX body like the D5100. At 600$ it is even cheaper than the 18-200mm DX.
Wed 17-Apr-13 01:46 AM | edited Wed 17-Apr-13 01:55 AM by jec6613
>In your shoes I would go with the 55-300 mm DX lens with VR. >It is an extremely versatile lens.... enough length to let you >get in close when you can't be physically close to a subject, >but short enough that you can use it for a portrait lens.
While I agree that the 55-300 is versatile, but the 55-300 does have a rotating front element (this causes problems for filters), and would need a different filter than the 18-55, as the 18-55 uses the standard 52 mm while the 55-300 uses the oddball 58 mm* - plus, it's bigger and heavier, and in my experience doesn't give much more usable images beyond the 55-200. Oh, and it's twice the price as the 55-200.
That kinda defeats the purpose of it IMHO. The 70-300 is my choice of a zoom to get out to 300 mm, and the 55-200 is more of a good general purpose tele than a specialist long reach lens.
*For reference, 52 mm is the standard Nikon small lens filter size, used by a slew of lenses. 58 mm, on the other hand, is an extreme oddball: the AF-S 50 mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses, the 55-300 DX and the three variants of the old (1990's) 28-80 lenses use it - A total of six lenses in the history of Nikon, making it one of the rarest filter sizes. This means not only do you need to have different filters for it, but that you will also end up using those filters for no other lens. My 52 mm circular polarizer can go onto five of my eight Nikkors, and two of the others (and one I'm ordering) take 67 mm filters. Guess which lens gets left at home almost always? That's right, the one with the oddball 58 mm filter size ...
However, at the end of the day, you'll be happy with any of the 55-200, 55-300 or 70-300, and the differences we're all arguing over are far smaller, indeed almost insignificant, compared to the most important feature that's common to all three lenses if you purchase them: the twelve inches immediately behind the eyepiece.
My goodness, what an education! I'm beginning to understand the issues; I'll let you know what I decide. I know the 70-300 also takes a different filter size (67mm) but the item I'm looking at includes two free filters: UV and polarizer (not Nikons). In fact here is the list of what's included with the lens, which costs $587, no local State tax for me and free shipping.
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens 67mm Snap-On Lens Cap LF-1 Rear Lens Cap for F Mount Lenses HB-36 Lens Hood CL-1022 Flexible Lens Pouch 5-Year Warranty (1-Year International + 4-Year USA Extension)
I just spoke with Nikon and they added that there is a conversion rate of 1.5 because this is an FX lens. They said to multiply both mm numbers by 1.5 to see what my effective range would be on the D5100 (a DX camera). Turns out I will actually get a range of 105-450mm, not 70-300mm. It gives me more at the high end but creates more of a gap between the kit and telephoto lens.
>I just spoke with Nikon and they added that there is a >conversion rate of 1.5 because this is an FX lens.
The focal length of the lens is exactly the same for both DX and FX (non-DX) lenses. Since the image sensor in a DX body (23.6mm x 15.6mm) is smaller than the sensor on an FX or film body (36mm x 24mm) the Field of View changes, because of the smaller size of the DX sensor, not the focal length.
The 1.5 X crop factor is only used to compare the Field of View (FOV) on a Film or FX body to the FOV on a DX body using a lens with the same focal length.
Both non-DX (FX) lenses and DX lenses when used on a DX body require the same 1.5 x conversion (crop) factor when comparing the FOV to the same lens mounted on an FX or film body. In other words the Crop factor applies to All lenses both DX and FX when mounted on a DX body. Your 18-55mm has the Equivalent FOV as a 27-82.5mm lens mounted on an FX or film body.
>They said >to multiply both mm numbers by 1.5 to see what my effective >range would be on the D5100 (a DX camera). Turns out I will >actually get a range of 105-450mm, not 70-300mm. It gives me >more at the high end but creates more of a gap between the kit >and telephoto lens.
Again, they are refurring to Equivalent Field of View when comparing a lens of the same focal length mounted on an FX or film body. Given that your 18-55mm has the EFOV of 27-82.5mm the gap between 82.5mm and 105mm is not very large, even on an FX body. I use a 17-55mm combined with a 70-200mm on my DX bodies and I have never missed the gap between 55mm and 70mm even though I have other lenses that could cover the range.
Who knew...well, you did. So I actually have a 27-82.5mm FOV with the kit lens (I have a vague memory of reading something about that in one of my beginner's books but didn't understand what they were talking about). It would have been nice if the Nikon rep had added that final piece of info.
"Crop Factor" is nothing more than a simple (Ha Ha) way of comparing the Field of View of a lens from one format to another. In this case DX format to 35mm (FX) format. The Focal length of the lens remains constant regardless of format or lens type DX, or non-DX (FX) .
Keep in mind that 35mm format has been the standard for well over 60 years. DX format was introduced about 2001. Since most photographers understood the relationship between focal length and Field of View on a 35mm camera. Using "1.5X DX Crop Factor" as an easy way discribe the difference in Field of View to most users. Now that many have never used a 35mm film camera it causes more confusion than anything else.
Here is another way to look at it: The reason it is called crop factor is if you capture an image with any lens using a 35mm film or FX body and you print the image to 36cm x 24cm (10 times larger than the sensor size for simplicity) . Then center a 23.6cm x 15.6cm (10 times larger than a DX sensor) rectangle in the center of the 35cm x 24cm image and cut out or "Crop" the rectangle. If you then enlarge the cropped image to 36cm x 24cm you will find that the image is about 1.5 X larger than the original 35cm x 24 cm print.
The crop factor applies to any and All lenses mounted on a DX body including DX lenses. Remember that the crop factor is simply a way of comparing the Field of View from one format (DX) to another (FX) . This includes the 18-55mm and All DX lenses. If you mount a 35mm f/1.4G AF-S lens on a DX body it will have the same Field of view as the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX mounted on the same DX body.
On a DX body both lenses have the same Angle of View = 44 Degrees. It doesn't matter that one is a DX lens and the other is an FX lens.
On an FX body the Angle of View is 63 Degrees. The problem with using a DX lens on an FX body is a DX lens produces a smaller image circle at the film or sensor plane which results in vignetting (very dark or black corners in the image) .
FX lenses work perfectly on DX bodies since the produce a larger image circle, they are usually sharper in the corners than a DX lens with the same focal length.
The plot thickens and gets more interesting! I'm going to have to stop spacing out while reading those very "technical" chapters in my book.
Bottom line: the "AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens" is perfectly fine for my D5100, even though it is also compatible with an FX camera, and the 1.5 FOV conversion factor does apply.
>Bottom line: the "AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G >IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Lens" is perfectly fine for my >D5100, even though it is also compatible with an FX camera,
Yes! I have and use a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR on most of my bodies including film bodies, DX bodies, and FX bodies.
>and the 1.5 FOV conversion factor does apply.
The "1.5 X Crop Factor" applies to Any and All Lenses used on a DX body. Both DX lenses and FX lenses. Unless you have been using a film or FX body and have a mental picture in your head of the relationship of Angle of View to Focal Length, I would not worry about the 1.5X Crop factor at all. The only thing to keep in mind with respect to Crop factor is the Rule of Thumb for Minimum Shutter Speed on a DX body to prevent Blur due to hand shake: Minimum Shutter Speed = 1 / 1.5 X Focal Length The Rule of Thumb was used before VR was introduced though it continues to be useful today in order to maximize Image Quality and Sharpness.
OK. I do have a Nikon FM 35mm SLR and was told it would work on that body also, however it's very unlikely I'll ever use that body again. I used the FM for years but never really knew all the info you presented here; I just "got by" and gradually went over to a Nikon "automatic" 35mm film camera, then a smartphone, and now the D5100.
Since the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is a G type lens so it doesn't have an Aperture Ring. Therefore you will not be able to adjust the aperture with it mounted on your FM. It will work on the N50 - N80, F100, F5, and F6 since the have Command Dials.
>OK, thanks. Whoever told me that said it would work but only >if I used it manually, is that correct? I won't be using that >old film body anyways but it's good to understand the ins and >outs of this. > >Mary
It will work, but only at minimum aperture (f/22-f/32 on the 70-300) and only using stop down metering. That's far too restrictive to be useful.
Also, your old Nikon FM lenses will work fine on your D5100, but you won't have metering and will have to shoot in manual mode.
Wed 17-Apr-13 11:09 PM | edited Thu 18-Apr-13 10:33 AM by WD4MLA
I did not use a tripod, it was hand held and I really do not remember the distance. It was set at 260mm and I did crop it. I did no additional sharpening other than the maximum sharpening setting in the camera. I usually adjust the exposure and saturation in post work.
You might like this little girl, it was taken at 280mm handheld. Check out the large view. No additional sharpening
Click on image for larger view.
Jerry Jaynes Great Smoky Mountains of North Carolina
Mary, there are 18 images in my gallery. All of them were taken with the 70-300mm VR lens you are considering. I have both a D7000 and a D5100 and the lens works great on both of them. To me, that lens has an awful lot of bang for your bucks. Feel free to click on the "visit my Nikonians gallery" line in this post and see for yourself what that lens will do for an old cuss hand holding his shots. Be sure to look at the largest versions of the images.
Those are wonderful, Jim, exactly what I would hope for. I don't know how far away you were from the birds in those shots but I suspect you were down on the ground, right?
I'd like to tell you all how much I appreciate all the sharing of info. I'll be continuing to learn on my own. Maybe I'll be posting my own photos soon.
Since I began this thread I'd like to follow-up by letting you all know that I made a decision and ordered the Nikkor 70-300 VR lens. It probably won't arrive till late next week since I chose free shipping (I used an online store in NY). Hopefully next weekend I'll be able to try it out.
Once again, thank you all. I'm attaching one of my early photos taken with the kit lens.
Beautiful photograph, Mary. I think you'll be happy with your new lens! Please follow up with the thread and let us know how it goes! I'm currently in the market for a new lens, as well, so I'm interested to hear of your experience. Take care.
Hi Tiffany! I finally took the lens out of the box this last week. I went out each day at lunch and stalked the hummingbirds. I knew a zoom lens would have trouble focusing quickly but I used "continuous" shoot anyways to ensure I got something; there was a lot of clicking and whirring going on in that lens, I can tell you! I have used it handheld only so far; I hope to learn to become better and better at being steady so I don't always need a tripod. I'm going to attach here (I hope), a shot I got at 195mm, all was on Auto. I stood about 25 feet back and pre-focused on the flower he has his beak in (I knew he'd return there so I laid in wait). When he returned I shot on continuous as often as the lens focusing would allow, until he left. I shoot RAW only at this time; I cropped the image and straightened it using the white wall at the back as a guide but no other modifications were made so I'm sure I could improve with noise reduction, etc. In order to upload it I had to reduce the pixels drastically and compress it. It's much more impressive than it will look here.