Home Forums Gear Photography How to shop for a lens?

I am ready to trip the trigger on a new DSLR. I have decided on the Nikon D5500 24 mp.

There seem to be about as many kit combos as there are dealers available. Several show a Nikon Af-s 18-55mm VR II with a Nikon AF-s 55-300 VR.

And I think this is the set I want for use taking photos of the grandkids across an athletic field or gymnasium.

But some of the combos offer a 70-300 mm Tamron lens, or a 70-300 mm Sigma lens. How can I determine if the listed Tamron/Sigma lens has auto focus or image stabilization?

And a couple of bundles included a long zoom lens ie 300-600 mm with a corresponding high f number. Are the inexpensive 300 mm plus zooms a complete waste of money?

I assume they would unusable except in the brightest of sunlight.

First off call the guys at Canera Land and talk to them. My small chip[DX] camera is a Canon 70D with a 16-300 Tamron on it. I normally don't like changing lenses or carrying a bunch of lenses with me.It will cover 90% of my needs. If you want to go longer then I would look at the 150-600 Tamron. I've done two recent air shows with only those two lenses. My war bird photos were great. Remember that with a DX sensor camera a 16-300 is equivalent to a 25-450mm on film. The 150-600 on my Canon is 240-960. Both lenses have VC or image stabilization.

Save for later

On another site I am always hearing this or that after market lens being trashed. Then I come over here and see the photo's Tamron Rep post's and i am absolutely certain most of us don't shoot as well as he does! I suspect that the guy could take photo's as good with a brand name lens, a sigma or a Tamron and you'll never be able to tell the difference by looking at the photo's.

When I got my D5000 years ago, I turned down the 18-55 kit lens with it, didn't have enough range for me. Instead I got the 18-105 and it worked for most of what I wanted. then along the line, when I had the money, I got the 55-300 and it is now my most used lens. The 18-105 was sold and replaced with the 18-140, really like this lens as a walk around lens.

If my pocket can ever afford it, I,m gonna get something in the range of an 18-300. I don't think the 16-300 has much advantage for what I do to spend the extra money.Your first lens I would think you'd want some range with till you know what you really want. I would not stop at anything under 300mm on the high side or under about 50mm on the low side.

After quite a biT of thought, I am thinking strongly about buying a kit with just the 55-300 mm with an accesory set to include a 2x doubler which I can play with. I think I will skip the 300-800 mm as well. When they include it in a kit for just $100, how good can it be?

I have used a Fujifilm HS-20 for about five years. It is not SLR and is equipped with a superzoom of 24-720 mm. But the sensor is failing and quits at the most inoportune moments.

I have no interest in macro shots. So I really think I can pass on the 18-55 mm.

And I am guessing the Nikon will deliver greater resolution, and faster shutter speeds at 300 mm than he Fuji did at 720 mm.

At this point my thouhts are, if I can't get the kids close enough in the field, I can do it on the computer.

The 2x teleconverter will be useless, in terms of both image quality and AF speed. I think you're right to get just a longer zoom to go with the body. 300mm should be enough, particularly for kid's sports where you often can stand at or near the sidelines.

Tamron has two different 70-300mm lenses. The one with image stabilization has "VC" in its description.

I do not think the Sigma 70-300 come with their OS, optical stabilizer.

Okay, thanks.

I have located a source for the camera with af-s 55-300 mm vr lens for less than $1000. They include the .43 WA and 2.2 teleconverter, as well as 96 Gb sd cards, optica flash unit, some filter and some other misc junk in the package.

Even if the WA and teleconverter are junk, that is still the best price on camera and lens that I can find.

Forget about the 2x teleconverter. Also stay away from the very slow lenses.

Read what Ken Rockwell says about whatever lens you think you might like.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm

For 1000 bucks I'd skip the SLR route and get a Panasonic FZ1000. 400mm capability, good autofocus and unless you intend to print larger than 11x14" it has all the pixels you need.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...00k_lumix_dmc_fz1000_digital_camera.html

Consumer grade SLR's and slow aperture zooms are only good choices if they are cheap. For 1000 bucks there are more capable cameras available and, unless you have lenses or really want to buy lenses, an SLR isn't always the best choice.

Joel at Cameraland set me up with a barely used Nikkor 70-300 at a great price. I can barely wait for it to get here so I can try it out.

Those 70-300 lenses you speak of are fantastic. Currently, my two longer zooms are the Nikon 70-300 VR, and the Tamron 70-200 2.8 DI VC. For the outdoor conditions you mentioned, either lens will do the job. My Nikon 70-300 rivals the sharpness of my Tamron (and even the Nikon 70-200 2.8 - I've shot it), and it's lighter and balances just great on my camera. I've shot it on the D90 & D600, and currently on the D610 and D750, and it feels great on all. From what I have heard and seen, the Tamron 70-300 does as well. There are things that you hear about autofocus speed, micro-contrast, etc., etc., but you will not notice the difference. Thing is though, all those great things are at an aperture of F6.3 to F8. That's fine for those ball fields during the day. In a gym, not so much. That's where the 2.8 lenses take over. What those "kit" zooms do at F8, those "pro" zooms will do at F2.8 - F4. Really makes a difference when you want to stop action indoors.

So...if you really need something that will capture the indoor stuff, I would offer to go one of two routes. One, get that 70-300 or 55-250, then maybe an 85mm 1.8 for indoor shoots. 85mm is not 300mm, so you would have to move closer, but not as close as you might think. With that 1.8 aperture though, you can crank your shutter speeds up a lot more than the kit zoom. Or, simply budget for a 70-200 2.8 that will do all the indoor stuff, plus outdoor sports, wildlife, portraits (gorgeous portraits), etc. etc. Love my Tamron! Then, you can add something like the 35mm 1.8 DX for wider shots indoors or out.

Thankyou for the advice.

My new Nikon d5500 arrived Friday evening. I had received the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR-II lens a few days previously from Joel.

This was just in time for the final day of my 13 YO Grand Daughter's softball season on Saturday.

I really am not much of a photographer. I was concerned with exposure settings. So I just set the camera to sport mode and let it control everything but the zoom.

To say that I am satisfied is an understatement. I am thrilled!

This is Abbey at the end of her fifth game in two days. She pitched all but two innings of the entire series, against girls as old as 16.

300 mm, ISO 400, 1/1600 sec, f/5.6 (notice the shimmer around the subject. I am shooting through a chain link fence)





70 mm, ISO 400. 1/1000 sec, F/4.5
Here's Abbey adding another point to the scoreboard. And I don't know where the chain link fence went. It was in front of me when I shot the photos!










I thought the Fuji HS-20 was a decent camera. But I could not have caught these memories with the Fuji.

I would be unhappy with the image softness. Though it may be much better than what you had.

This lens is noted for being increasingly soft over 200 mm. But, with a budget of $1000 for the entire kit, I am quite happy with it.

Perhaps you are using a bum filter? Or not using the sun shade? Either could soften the image.

It has a Vivatar UV filter and the lens came with a 4 inch sun shade which I was using.

Try some comparable shots without the filter. Wouldn't be surprised if that's hurting it.

Making some fine memories there and even the seams on the ball are reasonably frozen in the next to last image. It's amazing what big lenses can resolve around. Fences, twigs, etc can near disappear. Some of the softness could also be a product of downsizing.

I'd second the above suggestion though to try a few test shots with and without ones filters. Cookie runs Canon equipment and early on after the initial equipment purchase I spent serious bucks getting filters (polaroids and skylights) for her standard lenses and a 100 to 400 mm with mainly protection in mind.

Installed same upon arrival, and went out for a full weekend of chasing abundant wildlife. Came home and was severely disappointed as prior image crispness just was not there. Some fine shots/opportunities but dumped absolutely everything.

Most would have thought things were fine, but there was perceptible image degradation. I got out the tripod, went to the back deck, and ran paired with/without filter shots of a distant realtor sign carrying a variety of font sizes about 300 yds away. The smallest fonts were legible with out the filters and marginally readable with. All the filters immediately went to the round file, and I'll never purchase another with doing some tests first.

Today's lenses are highly engineered with lens surfaces and coatings all meshed in an attempt to get the full color spectrum to converge at a common point. Slapping a piece of flat glass on the front end really cannot offer much more than color manipulation and physical protection. Handle the lenses like they're glass and one should be fine.

If one conducts a similar test, pick a subject with lots of minute details and zoom in on common points with your image software for comparison. For protection now, we count on hoods and careful handling. Cookie hangs with several pros during the month of Nov chasing mule deer, and none of them are using filters on any of their gear.