Okay, so I'm in want of a new lens for my d5000. I've been looking at a few lenses on eBay and I really don't know which would be the best for me. The new lens should have good portrait capabilities, and some zoom to it. I've been looking at the 18-70mm af-s lens, the 18-105mm af-s vr lens, and the 55-200mm af-s vr. I really like the 18-70, but it's not vr- is that something I should have? Like, does it really make a difference? I have the 18-55mm af-s vr kit lens, and am not totally sure what exactly vr does. Any ideas???? Your input would be greatly appreciated!!!!! ~Thank you!~
You would probably want to go with the 55-200mm. The usually portrait length is 80-100mm, and this goes beyond it. That is what I used for my profile picture! It works pretty good, and if it doesn't zoom as you would like it, you can buy extenders for 1.4x to 2x zoom, making it up to a 400mm. I personally like it a lot! Hope this helps!
@shotsbymeg
Meghan, I have the 18-70mm and really like it. Its max aperture range is fairly small at f3.5 to 4.5 depending if you are at 18mm or 70mm. It's also a well made lens. Actually is heavier than my 55-200 vr.
Mine also doesn't have VR and I don't miss it on this lens. Not really needed as 70mm isn't that long of a focal length.
A couple of things, though. Vignetting is evident at 18mm. Easy to fix in software however or if you just set it to 19mm the vignetting doesn't show as much. And, it uses a different filter size, so you will need different filters for that lens.
If you get the 18-70, then you can sell your 18-55 as you won't need both. And put the 18-55 money toward the 55-200mm lens.
I haven't tried it as a "portrait" lens, but I think it would do fine.
VR is vibration reduction and comes in handy reducing blur caused by camera shake, especially on longer focal length lenses. It basically allows you to shoot handheld using somewhat slower shutter speeds. I have it in my 55-200mm and found it very useful when we took a door's off helicopter tour in Kauai. You can imagine how much a helicopter shakes so VR was really helpful in that regard.
But, the 18-70 is really great for landscapes and mild zoom work.
@shotsbymeg you can always look at a second hand SIgma 70-200 f2.8 I purchased a very good quality one from ebay and it is sharp as a tac, and for the money its a much better option then the nikon 55-200.
it can be purchased with or without VR or OS (optical image stabilizer).
Mine doesn't have the OS/VR but its never been an issue.
@shotsbymeg Get the Nikkor 55-200 VR. It is the perfect compliment to your 18-55. It is a superb lens for a bargain price. Don;t duplicate focal lengths you already have. Since I got my 55-200, it spends more time on my D3100 than my other three lenses combined!
Thanks guys for responding! Another thing is, I'd only wanna spend like 400 bucks tops. I'd went and looked at that sigma 70-200, and it was very nice- but I would never have that kinda money to just spend on a lens XD. So, the 18-70 is no good? I think it looks like a really nice beefy lens- and I am kind of looking for something a little beefier too. Nice and sturdy and all- Do any of you guys know of any other lenses not listed that I should be considering within my price range?? Any more thoughts? Thank you guys for helping me out btw!!! :)
@shotsbymeg Yes, the 55-300 is a good lens but much more expensive than the 55-200 and only opens up to f/4.5 at 55 mm. The 55-200 is noticeably lighter and cheaper and opens up to f/4.0 at 55 mm. I picked up my new 55-200VR from Amazon for under $150 delivered.
@shotsbymeg - No, the 18-70 is a great lens. I think some are saying to get the 55-200 so you wouldn't have 2 lenses with nearly the same focal lengths. But, you could easily sell the 18-55 and then only have the 18-70. Take the money you get from selling the 18-55 and put it towards the 55-200. That makes a nice set of lenses.
@shotsbymeg - I think the 55-300 is just too much zoom in one lens. I don't have one so I don't know how it is to use or results from it.
I already had the 55-200 so I ended up buying a 300mm f4 and I do like that one. But, I'd be tempted to stop at 200mm if going with the starting point of 55mm.
Maybe the 70-300mm might be the way to go?
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Meghan, I have the 18-70mm and really like it. Its max aperture range is fairly small at f3.5 to 4.5 depending if you are at 18mm or 70mm. It's also a well made lens. Actually is heavier than my 55-200 vr.
Mine also doesn't have VR and I don't miss it on this lens. Not really needed as 70mm isn't that long of a focal length.
A couple of things, though. Vignetting is evident at 18mm. Easy to fix in software however or if you just set it to 19mm the vignetting doesn't show as much. And, it uses a different filter size, so you will need different filters for that lens.
If you get the 18-70, then you can sell your 18-55 as you won't need both. And put the 18-55 money toward the 55-200mm lens.
I haven't tried it as a "portrait" lens, but I think it would do fine.
VR is vibration reduction and comes in handy reducing blur caused by camera shake, especially on longer focal length lenses. It basically allows you to shoot handheld using somewhat slower shutter speeds. I have it in my 55-200mm and found it very useful when we took a door's off helicopter tour in Kauai. You can imagine how much a helicopter shakes so VR was really helpful in that regard.
But, the 18-70 is really great for landscapes and mild zoom work.
it can be purchased with or without VR or OS (optical image stabilizer).
Mine doesn't have the OS/VR but its never been an issue.
I already had the 55-200 so I ended up buying a 300mm f4 and I do like that one. But, I'd be tempted to stop at 200mm if going with the starting point of 55mm.
Maybe the 70-300mm might be the way to go?