- This topic is empty.
Upgrading from Nikon kit lenses.
-
Newbie question so apologies if this is a daft one!
I have the Nikkor 18-55mm II kit lens and the 55-200mm VR lens. Both are in the cheap and cheerful range shall we say, but I’m more than happy with their performance, esp the cheap 18-55!
I’m astounded by the high ISO abilities of my D300, and basically wonder…
What would the advantages of more expensive lenses be? Faster, yes, better built, undoubtedly, but do they produce noticeably better results at real world sizes and normal settings? I know faster glass will let me drop the ISO for better results with les noise, but at the moment I just crank up the ISO and the camera sorts it out nicely…
I shoot mostly landscapes, and occasional action shots of mountainbikers in forests (low light, flash not always practical).
Any advice appreciated!
The Nikon kit lenses are petty good. The advantages of faster lenses are:
Brighter viewfinder
Better/faster focusiing
Bigger apertures for more background blur
Sharper at bigger apertures (well across the range really)
Heavier (less camera jerk when pushing the button)
Less CA and other distortionsThe Sigma 24-70 2.8EX, for example.
Si
Is that a recommended lens Simon? Top of my list at the moment is the Nikkor 70-200 2.8VR(need to win the lottery first though), and this looks like it might be a perfect partner for that lens.
The 70-200 2.8 is an excellent lens you should try it out in one of the cameras store first though but its probley
not the best lens if your doing landscape. perhaps something wider….
i have the sigma 10-20 for my landscapes and its my favorite lens out of all my kit great build quality. i think its about 600 euro in the shops i got mine on ebay for 350 New from hongkong.
most people ive spoke to always recomend better qaulity lens over the camra body itself. sounds odd when ur a n00b like me
Expresbro wrote:
Is that a recommended lens Simon? Top of my list at the moment is the Nikkor 70-200 2.8VR(need to win the lottery first though), and this looks like it might be a perfect partner for that lens.
Yep…
Si
JiMbO wrote:
The 70-200 2.8 is an excellent lens you should try it out in one of the cameras store first though but its probley
not the best lens if your doing landscape. perhaps something wider….
Be mainly for low light shooting indoors and for street (I know it’s big, but it just produces really nice crisp images from what I’ve seen).
Allinthemind wrote:
Yep…
Si
Thanks Si …succinct and to the point :wink:
I have the Nikon 80-200 f2.8. One of Nikon’s sharpest lenses. Solid build quality.
I had the 70-200 on order but cancelled it (had to wait too long at the time for it to be shipped)
and bought the 80-200 because aside from it being a great lens, I kinda figured that before VR alot of great
photographers would have bought it, so if it was good enough for them, it’d be good enough for me.
Of course its also cheaper :DCheers for that Mark. I’ve seen that lens okay. It is cheaper than the 70-200 as well.
How does it perform in low lighting such as a church where you can’t use flash?
Have only used it outdoors to be honest Robbie, I’d imagine like any f2.8 it would cope quite well, hunting doesn’t seem to be a problem.
However, VR would of course add greatly to the handhold capacity…
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
