Looking for Unique Wall Art? Explore Cameraframe: Extraordinary Frames Crafted with Camera Parts

Lens Questions

Relic01 11 8 Canada
12 Jun 2016 11:17PM
I am looking to get anew lens. What is the favored lens 70-300mm or 18=200mm the camera is a Nikon d5200.
MichaelMelb_AU 10 1.9k Australia
13 Jun 2016 12:14AM
In short, the less zoom range - the best image quality. In long- that would be a book on photographic lens. Ask yourself - are you after great image or all-in one versatility? Then decide...
Relic01 11 8 Canada
13 Jun 2016 12:35AM
Great Image but due to budget, would like one that is good for portraits and has some reach.
MichaelMelb_AU 10 1.9k Australia
13 Jun 2016 8:59AM
Traditionally portrait lenses are primes in 85-100 mm range if it goes with full frame sensor. For D5200 it translates into 50-70 mm prime. So, if you are after a zoom lens that fits portrait range you better off with 18-200 lens. It also will be good for landscapes. My guess is though that Nikkor 55-200 kit zoom may be even better and well cheaper. I own one with D5500 and cannot fail it for image quality. What is most amazing it is great through whole zoom range.
dark_lord Plus
19 3.0k 836 England
13 Jun 2016 9:22AM
Are you looking at Nikon only or would for Tamron or Sigma too? Some idea of budget would be helpful for suggestions too.

If you have the kit lens you already have the wide and covered so it appears you want something longer so 70-300 (or similar) is the way to go unless you only want one lens.

But as Michael says, if you want image quality then having the two lenses is the best option. The standard kit lens isn't bad so you won't get better quality in an all-in-one.
Relic01 11 8 Canada
13 Jun 2016 11:14AM
Sigma and Tamron would be fine, I have the 18-55 and it is a great lens (actually, I am still in awe over the difference between 24 mp and the Fuji Finepix I had before, stunned every time lol). I am leaning towards the 18-200 or 55-200. I would like to try portraits but also still have a desire to do the landscapes etc I have been doing. While I know that a "good all around lens" is never as good as a specific lens for a specific task, I need to go for versatility. My budget is approx 150-300 CDN tops. Used is acceptable as well.
FloKl 9 73 Austria
13 Jun 2016 11:44AM
May not be in your budget but the Nikkor 18-140 is a fine lens too. I use it as my allrounder and am very happy with it.
When looking at the Nikkor 18-200, there are two models available - VR and VR II. As far as I have read, there is not much difference between the two and looking at your budget it might make sense to go with the older one.
Google "Ken Rockwell 18-200", he has written some stuff about these lenses.
themak 9 1.1k Scotland
13 Jun 2016 12:11PM
Distortion, particularly at the wide end, is usually one of the drawback with 'superzooms', so I'd agree with the above that your present 18-55 will be better for that range, and a 55-200 or 70-300 would be preferable (unless you really need an all-in-one).
Chris_L 9 5.5k United Kingdom
13 Jun 2016 12:15PM
If you're serious about portraits then get a wide aperture prime lens. Forget the zoom. On that body and bearing in mind you are on a budget get one of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 lenses. I think the image quality will eclipse the other suggestions. If you want to save even more cash then this will do great portraits.
Relic01 11 8 Canada
13 Jun 2016 4:24PM
Thank you everyone, I am leaning towards the all rounder 55 200. I am going to read and digest then have an honest conversation with myself, lol. Wanting to do and the reality of life need to be reconciled, lol
StrayCat 19 19.1k 3 Canada
13 Jun 2016 5:03PM
Take a look at the 55-300 also, it should give at least the quality of the 55-200mm. However, I have found that all but high end lenses in that range lose quality beyond 200mm.
Jestertheclown 14 8.8k 255 England
13 Jun 2016 6:01PM

Quote:Take a look at the 55-300

That's what I did.
I was in the market for a cheap-but-reasonably-good zoom a few years ago and I was able to borrow a 55-200 to test the water, so to speak.
It was OK but I found that its reach was insufficient. Even taking shots of the birds in my garden was hard work. They were always just a bit too far away.
So when it came to actually buying something, it had to be the 55-300.
The difference in reach is surprisingly noticeable and having tried the two side by side, admittedly not in a particularly controlled experiment, I found that while, unsurprisingly, they both perform better at close(r) range, the 55-300 offered better IQ at all ranges than its shorter sibling.
Hope this helps.
LenShepherd 15 4.6k United Kingdom
14 Jun 2016 9:56AM
I would ignore every comment so far - and get back to basics Grin
You have a decent body and mid range zoom that focusses quite close as in the nice dog photo in your portfolio.
Most of the zooms being suggested do not focus as close - something to think long and hard about as you may have to adjust your style of photography when using one.
Going back to your original suggestion and your wish for good image quality the 70-300 VR version (fairly expensive) would be a good choice.
There are many other options usually with less versatility and outside your budget.
Are you considering second hand? There are second hand specialists such as Fords, MPB and others who give a decent warranty as a route to getting more lens quality within a specific budget.
themak 9 1.1k Scotland
14 Jun 2016 10:30AM
Well, that's cleared that up.
thewilliam 14 6.1k
14 Jun 2016 10:53AM
Make sure you spell Ffordes correctly when googling. A single "F" will get you motors!

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.