Newbie needs lenses advice for D3000
I just got my new D3000 a month ago and it came with the standard 18-55 lens which I'm very happy with. I'm still in the learning stages with my camera and am just about now experimenting with other settings beyond AUTO!!!!
My 8 year old son plays a lot of soccer and I find that my 18-55 lens does not give me enough zoom capability on the soccer field so I'm looking to buy another lens. I definitely am on a budget so screening my choices very carefully.
From the research I've been doing it seems like the Nikon 55-200($220 on Amazon) and the 18-250 would be good options but any other suggestions...? Besides the Nikon I was also looking at Tamron lenses(just becoz they are cheaper) but it seems like they dont have VR which I'd really like. I am so far satisfied with my manual autofocus but would like for a AF-S or built in auto focus lenses which I'm hoping I can use if I upgrade in the future.
I really would appreciate your advice on what lens I can buy, also are used lenses in a good condition on sites like BHphots video a good idea....?
Thanks a lot!
#2. "RE: Newbie needs lenses advice for D3000" | In response to Reply # 0MEMcD Nikonian since 24th Dec 2007Mon 10-May-10 08:39 PM
Welcome to Nikonians!
If you can stretch you budget the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR should be at the top of your list. It will perform much better at the long end than the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR.
The Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG OS is another choice at a price close to the Nikkor.
For Soccer the added reach over the 55-200mm will come in handy.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#3. "RE: Newbie needs lenses advice for D3000" | In response to Reply # 2californiagal Registered since 10th May 2010Tue 11-May-10 03:17 AM
Thank you Gerold & Marty!!
I just looked up the 70-300 and its even cheaper than the 18-200...Yay!!!!!
One question though I had from all the reviews about the 70-300 is that while it has a real good telephot zoom, the wide angle zoom is much inferior than the 18-200. Is this true...? How would the wide angle zoom on the 70-300 be when compared with my current 18-55 lens?
Also I'd prefer something that I can fix to my camera and leave on and use most of the time so is the excess weight(its almost triple the weight of 18-200) feasible.
Thanks a lot for your input.
#4. "RE: Newbie needs lenses advice for D3000" | In response to Reply # 3WD4MLA Nikonian since 10th Nov 2002Tue 11-May-10 03:16 PM | edited Tue 11-May-10 03:22 PM by WD4MLA
The 70-300VR is not considered a wide angle and 70mm is as wide as it is going to get. It is not as wide your 18-55 when it is set at 55mm.
While one lens that that covers everything sounds like a great thing, there are some trade off's in IQ. You will get better results with a two lens system.
With the two lens you could cover from 18mm-300mm with only 55mm to 70mm not being covered. I do not think you would miss that but you would gain 100mm on the long end by going with the 70-300VR.
Here are a couple of shots taken with the 70-300vr hand held.
Great Smoky Mountains
of North Carolina
#5. "RE: Newbie needs lenses advice for D3000" | In response to Reply # 3MEMcD Nikonian since 24th Dec 2007Tue 11-May-10 03:24 PM
>One question though I had from all the reviews about the
>70-300 is that while it has a real good telephot zoom, the
>wide angle zoom is much inferior than the 18-200. Is this
>true...? How would the wide angle zoom on the 70-300 be when
>compared with my current 18-55 lens?
70mm is considered short telephoto, not wide angle by any means. The long side of wide angle is 35mm on an FX body and about 24mm or so on a DX body. Your 18-55mm will be your wide angle to short telephoto zoom.
The 70-200mm is at least as good if not better than the 18-200mm from 70-135mm. It performs significantly better than the 18-200mm from 135mm - 200mm and leaves the 18-200mm in the weeds from 200mm to 300mm.
>Also I'd prefer something that I can fix to my camera and
>leave on and use most of the time so is the excess weight(its
>almost triple the weight of 18-200) feasible.
The 70-300mm VR (745g) weighs less than 1/3 more than the 18-200mm VR (565g), not three times more. The issue of weight is a very individual decision. My camera bodies are about twice the weight of the D3000 and my 70-200mm VR (1540g) is more than twice the weight of the 70-300mm VR. When I pack light, I carry two bodies, a few lenses and a Speedlight.
For shooting soccer the added reach of the 70-300mm will be very useful. I use my 70-200mm and a 300mm or 400mm prime.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
#6. "RE: Newbie needs lenses advice for D3000" | In response to Reply # 2phxflyer Registered since 13th May 2010Thu 13-May-10 12:55 AM
>Welcome to Nikonians!
>If you can stretch you budget the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G
>ED IF AF-S VR should be at the top of your list.
I have the 70-300mm it really rocks!