Help!

Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Albuquerque
Heading to Niagra Falls soon...
Very much want 55-300 af/s
I have a D5000
I love photographing water, waterfalls.
Will this lens make me happy?!
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
3,040
Location
Wilmington, NC
What other lenses do you own? It may not be wide enough if you want to get a lot into a scene. Certainly need more info to be able to advise if that is your best choice.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
4,122
Location
Newark, Ohio
So far I have heard some good reviews (here) about that lens. Just curious: What lens(s) do you have now? :smile:
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Albuquerque
Only the 18-55 have had camera about 3months. Before that used point and shoot and N65...wow big difference and loving it.
I enjoy focused in detail.
When I'm not drowning in work I'll get on computer and post pictures.
Any thoughts I'm all ears and I love learning new ideas!
Thanks
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
3,040
Location
Wilmington, NC
Sure you can get decent pics even with the kit lens you have, just stop it down to F8 and you will get plenty of keepers. If you want a better wide zoom for DX the Nikon 12-24 would be a good one to look at as it is not that expensive and gives very good wide angle results.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
8,400
Location
LA (Lower Arkansas)
If you've got the 18-55, I'd suggest getting the 55-200VR and the 35 1.8. This is a small, lightweight kit that produces better photos than it should for the price tag. You can pick up a Hoya CP filter (52mm) that will work on all three lenses. You should be able to pick up all this, used, for the price of the 55-300.
 
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
529
Location
Idaho
If you've got the 18-55, I'd suggest getting the 55-200VR and the 35 1.8. This is a small, lightweight kit that produces better photos than it should for the price tag. You can pick up a Hoya CP filter (52mm) that will work on all three lenses. You should be able to pick up all this, used, for the price of the 55-300.

I agree with BourbonCowboy, the 55-200VR is good lens and weighs almost nothing for a 200mm lens. I keep my 55-200 non VR around just for that reason.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Albuquerque
Difference

Aside from the obvious...what is the difference between 55-200 and 55-300? Am I gaining that much more or am I better off to get 55-200 and a 35 1.8?
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
20,041
Location
TX originally from Louisiana
On top of that - be sure you have a water proof bag - even the walk around the falls will be very misty and your camera will get wet! If there is one, you may want a water proof housing. I learned that the hard way when we spent a week up there!
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Albuquerque
I agree on the bag...I have a great bag by Nikon it fits my lat top as well which is a must. My husband says it screams "steal me I'm valuable" because it says "Nikon", but I love it and I never am not attached to the bag! Guess they would have to steal me too!!
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
691
Location
Orlando, Florida
At this point, I'd suggest getting the new 55-300 VR. I think it's the eventual replacement for the 55-200 but who knows. Canon moved up to 55-250 so Nikon had to do something, right? I prefer the 70-300 VR, but it's considerably larger on the D5000 body while the 55-300 is less money, smaller and lighter. Some Nikon Cafe members are reporting excellent results with it.

I'd wait until you think you need a low light lens, then consider the 35 f/1.8. Hopefully the price will have fallen at that time. Right now it can be artificially high.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom