krishnandu.sarkar

Simply a DIGITian
Staff member
Hello, Currently I'm using 18-55 Kit lens and 35mm.

I'm very happy with the Kit lens considering myself a beginner. And 35mm produces great results, but at some situations, I fail to produce great results with it, ofcourse due to my lack.

But both of them are incapable of capturing close-up's. I like travelling a lot, so I need a light weight telephoto lens with which I can capture close ups of snow capped mountains kind of like below examples (This is the only requirement with telephoto lens that I have).

Though I'm not 100% sure, that I'd have any other requirement with Telephoto Lens, as I generally travel to only hill stations.

I was looking at Nikon 70-300 and 55-300 but 55-300 is too costly and 70-300 lacks VR. And I'm damn sure without VR, I'd end up with each and every images blurry.

So can you please recommend me some lens (in lowest possible cost) with which I can get same results like below.

[MENTION=121890]kaz[/MENTION] [MENTION=125321]nac[/MENTION] [MENTION=140405]Hrishi[/MENTION]

img_4202_resized.jpg


kanchenjungha-from-bermiok.jpg


24568d1324330338-golden-valleys-towering-mountains-and-a-love-affair-with-kanchenjungha-sikkim-p1020225.fs.jpg


IMG_5129.jpg


24577d1324330776-golden-valleys-towering-mountains-and-a-love-affair-with-kanchenjungha-sikkim-p1020240.fs.jpg
 

nac

Aspiring Novelist
I was looking at Nikon 70-300 and 55-300 but 55-300 is too costly and 70-300 lacks VR. And I'm damn sure without VR, I'd end up with each and every images blurry.
If 55-300 is expensive, 70-300VR is even more expensive, even 3rd party lens costs more than that. Yeah, non VR costs less. By expensive, I take that your budget is not 20k. Probably less than 15k? The next option is 55-200VR, costs about ~10k. Recently, I shot portrait with this lens. It came out good.

- - - Updated - - -

And for the intended purpose, 200mm should be sufficient. I hope you're not planning for bird watching/wild life photography.
 

sujoyp

Grand Master
your requirement perfectly matches with nikon 55-200 vr ...its small, light weight, and sharp...its weight is almost equal to 18-55 ...I used it extensively before
 
OP
krishnandu.sarkar

krishnandu.sarkar

Simply a DIGITian
Staff member
If 55-300 is expensive, 70-300VR is even more expensive, even 3rd party lens costs more than that. Yeah, non VR costs less. By expensive, I take that your budget is not 20k. Probably less than 15k? The next option is 55-200VR, costs about ~10k. Recently, I shot portrait with this lens. It came out good.

- - - Updated - - -

And for the intended purpose, 200mm should be sufficient. I hope you're not planning for bird watching/wild life photography.

Yes, I'm not at all interested in Bird Watching / Wild Life Photography. I'm sticking to Landscapes only that also travel photo. Nothing else.

your requirement perfectly matches with nikon 55-200 vr ...its small, light weight, and sharp...its weight is almost equal to 18-55 ...I used it extensively before

Thanks to you both!! Then I'll go with 55-200 then :)
 

CRACING

Journeyman
Hello,

Nikon 70-300mm without VR is actually a AF lens. That means it doesn't got builtin focusing motor. Only good for DSLRs with builtin focusing motor. I don't think there is a non vr AF-S 70-300 lens from Nikon but available from Sigma and Tamron.

Nikon 70-300mm that has VR costs 30+ and it is a AF-S Lens. We find it costly but not full frame camera users/owners because the lens is made for those customers. Alternatives from 3rd party brands are Tamron SP AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC, Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC PZD, Sigma 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

For you, the best lens is 55-200mm because its easy to carry around and takes decent pictures. I have it and I mostly use it for bird photography. Good for taking pictures of near distance subjects and they do come sharp. May get better if we keep aperture around F/8-11 and shutter speed more then 1/200 at 200mm.

2nd best lens is 55-300mm from Nikon but you have to spend double money. Its worth for what it costs though.

Long range lenses need faster shutter speed to take sharp pictures. VR won't help much if you fail to hold the camera steadily or set slow shutter speed. Now say if you can hold a camera steadily and set faster shutter speed (i.e 1/450 at 300mm focal length) then why do you need VR? If you want to shoot in low night then what you need is a tripod, not a VR.

What I want to say is, think about those 3rd party 70-300mm lenses that don't have VR. Sigma AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG APO is the best pick because it has apochromatic element(s). There are lot of photographers who take sharp pictures with non-vr long range lenses. Its just a matter of holding the camera steadily and selecting shutter speed accordingly.

Hope I have helped you a little. :)

Thanks..
Best Regards
 
Top Bottom