divya magvani
Broken In
Der is no such 55-250 in nikon all those 3rd party lenses u mentioned are too expensive
Camera talk...
- Thread starter nac
- Start date
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
Get something closest to it then, I saw you mention a 55-200.
Might really want to try holding off this purchase until you havbe more cash to get a 18-250 DC Macro by Sigma (thats not available in India yet) or something similar.
I suggest holding off the purchase because you dont seem to NEED a lens, just that you have 16k in hand and would LIKE to have a lens.
kaz
right here
Divya I was also going to ask you the same question Pranav has asked. How can you confuse between 55-200 and a 35/55mm prime?
I got a 55-200mm 2days back for more zoom.. I will get more zoom when I have more money and a 35mm f1.8 later..
Also 200mm on the 55-200mm is very much usable while hand holding it.. Going to test it tomorrow at a beach (that's a only good place near my hostel, 15kms away
its like 3rd time in 32days after getting my D5200 )
I got a 55-200mm 2days back for more zoom.. I will get more zoom when I have more money and a 35mm f1.8 later..
Also 200mm on the 55-200mm is very much usable while hand holding it.. Going to test it tomorrow at a beach (that's a only good place near my hostel, 15kms away
its like 3rd time in 32days after getting my D5200 )
Last edited:
divya magvani
Broken In
Ok guys den wont purchase anything now btw thnx for ur suggestions
divya magvani
Broken In
Btw kaz is 55-200 zoom is sufficient or should go for 55-300 or any other better zoom?
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
Divya, no zoom is ever enough. But 200 is good for most purposes.
You can do macros on the cheap by reverse mounting, adding a macro filter or using extension tubes
I would advise against the 18-200 or whatever, you can switch to your kit lens for those focal ranges. Why spend money or sacrifice quality for it
The learning composion since a prime will not allow zooming argument is there. But you can also learn if you have that ability and not use it, or even if you use it
Don't worry, whatever lens you buy there are a million creative uses to it. Learn those and you'll enjoy whatever you buy
You can do macros on the cheap by reverse mounting, adding a macro filter or using extension tubes
I would advise against the 18-200 or whatever, you can switch to your kit lens for those focal ranges. Why spend money or sacrifice quality for it
The learning composion since a prime will not allow zooming argument is there. But you can also learn if you have that ability and not use it, or even if you use it
Don't worry, whatever lens you buy there are a million creative uses to it. Learn those and you'll enjoy whatever you buy
divya magvani
Broken In
Btw hows sigma 18-200 II dc os for 20k also tamron 18-200 w/o os for 12k
divya magvani
Broken In
Also i want comparison between dis 3 by their price quality ratio sigma 18-200os 20k,nikon 55-200 10k,nikon 55-300 20k all are vr so help does more 10 k justified for 55-300 ??
sujoyp
Grand Master
18-200 OS is good but then you already have 18-55 and in any case these superzoom lens are not good quality wise (you are comparing negligible quality difefernce between 35mm and 50mm then consider this crap)
55-200 VR its a poor mans 70-200 ...I have used it in soo many places ....you can shoot pics at 200 f5.6 and it will be sufficiently sharp ...you can check my pics ...I have shot everything with that lens..and keeping it even after getting 150-500
55-300 VR it have the range but its slow on focusing and VR-I is not enough for 300mm...you better get tamron 70-300 VC USD
go to my flickr *www.flickr.com/photos/sujoypackrasy/
and check pics below victoria memorial..most pics are taken with 55-200
55-200 VR its a poor mans 70-200 ...I have used it in soo many places ....you can shoot pics at 200 f5.6 and it will be sufficiently sharp ...you can check my pics ...I have shot everything with that lens..and keeping it even after getting 150-500
55-300 VR it have the range but its slow on focusing and VR-I is not enough for 300mm...you better get tamron 70-300 VC USD
go to my flickr *www.flickr.com/photos/sujoypackrasy/
and check pics below victoria memorial..most pics are taken with 55-200
divya magvani
Broken In
So i think i should not consider 55-300 due to expensiveness,heavy,slow af den i think better stick wid 55-200 btw if i want combo lyk 55-200 & 35 or 55-200 wid 50 which one is gud
sujoyp
Grand Master
for a combo you can get a 55-200 and 35mm ....but if u like to shoot pics in party and outings with family (low light conditions)very often I suggest drop the idea of 2nd lens and get a nice flash instead ..it will improve the quality of pics at night quit a bit...a 3-4k flash is good enough 1k for rechargable battery and charger ...and remaining money for a bag you will carry.
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
Keep in mind that you and only you are the judge of whether you want the 18-55 mm range in your lenses.
55-200 or 250 is all fine, but you are now losing out on the wideangle part. Basically, its a pain if you want o take a group photo when you have a 55-250 on your camera (you have to stand a lot away from the group).
Every lens is a compromise. Unless you are decided on what you want - whether you are willing to live with not taking group pictures/relatively wideangle shots we cannot comment whether you should go for a 18-200 at 20k or 55-200 at 10k.
Like I said earlier - there is no good lens for an undecided photographer.
So let me ask it again. Why do you want to buy a lens ? Are you willing to live with not being able to get easy group/wide photos ?
PS: If you have difficulty imagining why this wideangle thing is so important- imagine if you are okay with living with a camera whose minimum zoom is 4x (you can do 4x to 15x but not any less than 4x) - thats how a 55-200 is going to feel against a 18-200.
55-200 or 250 is all fine, but you are now losing out on the wideangle part. Basically, its a pain if you want o take a group photo when you have a 55-250 on your camera (you have to stand a lot away from the group).
Every lens is a compromise. Unless you are decided on what you want - whether you are willing to live with not taking group pictures/relatively wideangle shots we cannot comment whether you should go for a 18-200 at 20k or 55-200 at 10k.
Like I said earlier - there is no good lens for an undecided photographer.
So let me ask it again. Why do you want to buy a lens ? Are you willing to live with not being able to get easy group/wide photos ?
PS: If you have difficulty imagining why this wideangle thing is so important- imagine if you are okay with living with a camera whose minimum zoom is 4x (you can do 4x to 15x but not any less than 4x) - thats how a 55-200 is going to feel against a 18-200.
divya magvani
Broken In
I,know dat but its okay wid me to move bacwards to shoot group,shots btw. Sujoy u own quote expensive,lenses sorry to ask u personal qs like dis but r u a professional photographer or a hobbyist? I think i luv prime lenses my frnd has 55-300 hardly uses it due to heavyweight nd slow af btw thnx
divya magvani
Broken In
Sujoy ur idea is gud buy i rarely do flash photography so thoght bout prime 35mm i hv read dat if ur at f3.5 at shutter speed of 1/8 u can get 1/80 of shutter speed with f1.8 is dat true btw luv ur bokeh,architecture,MACRO so awesum hdr nd night photographs on Flickr thnx
sujoyp
Grand Master
if u dont use flash much then you can go with 35mm 1.8 ...yes at f1.8 can give u that much shutter speed at low light....but the pic would not be that sharp ...coz at f1.8 there is very less depth of field...thats the area under focus is very less...but I have heard that at f2.8 these primes are very nice to shoot.
I would have suggested you 40mm micro as it give very nice closeups...you can take closeup of a ant using that but then it dont produce that nice bokeh as f1.8 produces....and its not that good at low light as its again f2.8 and not f1.8
I am a hobbyist ...I am yet to participate in any compitition at all ...take pics for my satisfaction only
I would have suggested you 40mm micro as it give very nice closeups...you can take closeup of a ant using that
but then it dont produce that nice bokeh as f1.8 produces....and its not that good at low light as its again f2.8 and not f1.8I am a hobbyist ...I am yet to participate in any compitition at all ...take pics for my satisfaction only
divya magvani
Broken In
Thnx will consider dat btw wat r ur thpghts on gorrillapod slr zoom wid ballhead for 3k can support weight upto 3kg!!
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
Often its not about you not moving back, its about not having the space to move back at all ..
Prime lenses are always better in (I)mage (Q)uality than their zoom counterparts, but you have to know exatly what you are getting into. Zoom lenses make up for their slight inferiority in IQ bu their flexibility in image composition. For your needs, a zoom lens to be a much better fit. And especially some thing like the 18-200 a fit it and forget it lens that can do relatively - wideangle to near telephot without ever having to change lenses.
This is probably my next lens (when it becomes available) - my needs are similar to yours btw:
Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM review: Digital Photography Review
I'll be very skeptical of gorillapods doing 3kgs, but I could be wrong...
Edit, its already available. Time to start saving up for me
*www.amazon.in/Sigma-18-250mm-f3-5-6-3-Digital-Cameras/dp/B008B48AAE
Last edited:
JabeshRaja
New to this forum
HI Guys,
I need a advise on buying a point and shoot camera. My budget is 15K max..
Purpose: Blessed with new born baby. to capture memories..
Pls help me..
I need a advise on buying a point and shoot camera. My budget is 15K max..
Purpose: Blessed with new born baby. to capture memories..
Pls help me..
divya magvani
Broken In
So it seems i hav sorted it out no primes ryt now stick to 55-200 for now for 9k and gorillapod for 3.5k wid ballhead nd lowepro adventura 170 for 2.5k so total 15k thnx guys prime will be my future purchase