Question about comparing 3 Nikkor lense for use on Nikon D 3200
Feb 10, 2016 15:04:20 #
19104
Loc: Philadelphia
I have been thinking about acquiring a Nikon D 3200 as my keep with camera. In the before time I always had a film camera in the trunk of my car ready for any possibility. My main kit is made up of a pair of D800E and the 5 lenses.
I want a smaller lighter DSLR that I can keep on me all the time. Here is my question. There are three lens groups that I am considering and they are the 18 -55 and 55 - 200 NIKKOR or the 18 - 200 NIKKOR OR THE 18 -300 NIKKOR.
I would to hear from people who have a t least two of theses lenses. I am not interested in changeing camera brand or type. And I do not what to get any links to test reports. I want to hear from users.
thanks in advance
John
I want a smaller lighter DSLR that I can keep on me all the time. Here is my question. There are three lens groups that I am considering and they are the 18 -55 and 55 - 200 NIKKOR or the 18 - 200 NIKKOR OR THE 18 -300 NIKKOR.
I would to hear from people who have a t least two of theses lenses. I am not interested in changeing camera brand or type. And I do not what to get any links to test reports. I want to hear from users.
thanks in advance
John
Feb 10, 2016 15:07:30 #
I have a D7000 and a D800 and def. find uses for the D7000. It works great with the 28-300mm at birthday parties. I don't have to go chasing after kids to get my shot as much.
Feb 10, 2016 15:24:30 #
If I had to do it over again, I would go for the 18-300. It will cover a very wide range and you would hardly, if ever, have to remove it from the body.
I have an 18-55, a a 35mm prime, a 55-300 (Nikkor), and a Sigma 18-250. Maybe I should get the sensor cleaned and trade them all in for that 18-300...
I have an 18-55, a a 35mm prime, a 55-300 (Nikkor), and a Sigma 18-250. Maybe I should get the sensor cleaned and trade them all in for that 18-300...
Feb 10, 2016 16:52:40 #
Well, I went with the 18-140. Much lighter and cheaper, but as good or better quality than 18-200 or 18-300.
If you rarely go long, that might be the lens to consider.
If you rarely go long, that might be the lens to consider.
Feb 10, 2016 17:36:36 #
I know you said you want to get a D3200, why not a D3300
I have a D3100, upgraded to D3300, which I love. (I also have a Nikon D7000, which though 16 megapix, compared to the 24 megapix, D3300, I really like.
Okay as for lenses, I upgraded the kit lenses that came with my D3100 to the newer versions. 18-55 and 55-200, I like both of them to use on my D3300. I also have the 55-300mm VRII that I prefer to use on the D7000 since it is a larger, heavy lens that just feels better on the larger camera body.
I just got a 18-105 for a walk around and I a not enamored with some of the photos I get with that lens on either camera. I do have a 35mm prime I use indoors a lot. Lots of options. I think I should have skipped the 18-105 and bought the 18-135 or 18-140 instead. Hope this helps.
I have a D3100, upgraded to D3300, which I love. (I also have a Nikon D7000, which though 16 megapix, compared to the 24 megapix, D3300, I really like.
Okay as for lenses, I upgraded the kit lenses that came with my D3100 to the newer versions. 18-55 and 55-200, I like both of them to use on my D3300. I also have the 55-300mm VRII that I prefer to use on the D7000 since it is a larger, heavy lens that just feels better on the larger camera body.
I just got a 18-105 for a walk around and I a not enamored with some of the photos I get with that lens on either camera. I do have a 35mm prime I use indoors a lot. Lots of options. I think I should have skipped the 18-105 and bought the 18-135 or 18-140 instead. Hope this helps.
Feb 10, 2016 17:40:19 #
My go bag has a D300 with 2 lenses, and each serves a purpose. These are DX lenses - 12-24, 18-200.
--
--
Feb 11, 2016 06:10:53 #
I stay away from superzoom lenses. The engineers have to compromise too much in the optical design in order to achieve the long zoom range. They typically have a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end and a lot of pincushion distortion at long focal lengths. I've used the Nikon 18-200mm lens. It was like that. Consider the Nikon 16-85mm DX f/3.5-5.6 VR lens. It's sharp, has great build quality, and has half the distortion of Nikon's superzoom lenses. For your long range shots consider the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens. It's sharp and has low distortion.
The Nikon 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses have plastic lens mounts. I draw the line there. Lenses should have metal lens mounts,
The Nikon 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses have plastic lens mounts. I draw the line there. Lenses should have metal lens mounts,
Feb 11, 2016 07:31:35 #
I had an 18-200 which I sold when I went full frame. I didn't have much distortion because I usually shot in the middle ranges. Loved that lens though.
Feb 11, 2016 08:05:40 #
Try these comparisons.
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
Feb 11, 2016 08:09:30 #
CO wrote:
I stay away from superzoom lenses. The engineers h... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
The 16-85 is my go to lens for walk a round.
Feb 11, 2016 08:55:20 #
19104
Loc: Philadelphia
I want the d3200 cause it can be had refurbished for $249 about the Pryce if good cigars.
Feb 11, 2016 08:58:40 #
19104 wrote:
I have been thinking about acquiring a Nikon D 320... (show quote)
I would base it on what you like to shoot, `
I use the 18-300 as I shoot wildlife, need the range.
Feb 11, 2016 09:22:17 #
Don L G wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
The 16-85 is my go to lens for walk a round.
The 16-85 is my go to lens for walk a round.
Agreed!
Feb 11, 2016 09:22:37 #
I agree and enlarge in PP as needed. They can be found refurbished for around $300.00. I only take it off to use my 50MM f1.8 for portraiture.
jcboy3 wrote:
Well, I went with the 18-140. Much lighter and cheaper, but as good or better quality than 18-200 or 18-300.
If you rarely go long, that might be the lens to consider.
If you rarely go long, that might be the lens to consider.
Feb 11, 2016 09:25:43 #
19104 wrote:
I have been thinking about acquiring a Nikon D 320... (show quote)
I think the 55-200 kinda sucky. The 55-300 is much sharper.
My wife loves her 18-300. It is great for the always have camera because there is no fumbling with changing lenses. Images rival the 55-300 and are much sharper than 55-200.
In a fit of magnanimity I gave my daughter in law my 55-300 when I got a 28-300. She gave me her 55-200. After a few shots with the 55-200 I've never used it again. I asked for my 55-300 back and she refused and called me an "Indian giver" (wonder where that racist term came from?). So if anyone wants a 55-200...
PS: My air travel camera is a D5300 on which I usually only take my Sigma 17-50 f2.8. It delivers serious image quality better than all the above. When travelling at home by car it becomes the weapon of choice for wildlife with my 200-500 and the D800 takes over for everything else.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.