Just bought a Nikon d3000, now need a long lense

[B16JUS]

a few friends have bought some nice cameras and i finally decided to get a d3000 a whole days play and i think its superb.

but i now need a long lense for motorsport etc shooting boats out at sea etc, what can you guys recomend

J

[Simpo Two]

You don't give a budget but unless you want a bonkersly-expensive fast one, which seems unlikely, then I'd say the Nikkor 70-300mm VR is the best of the 'normal' lenses.

http://www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk/products/nikon-...

If that's too much, look at independent makes like Sigma.

[B16JUS]

Sorry prob looking at 150 - 200 dont mind mint second hand though.

silly questions whats VR stand for ? also i gather i need a long lense with a built in motor for auto focus ?

just reading about tamron 70-300 seems good for the money ?

[Simpo Two]

B16JUS said:

silly questions whats VR stand for ? also i gather i need a long lense with a built in motor for auto focus ? just reading about tamron 70-300 seems good for the money ?

Third line down: 'This lens incorporates Nikon’s second-generation vibration reduction system (VR II)' and you're right, you need lenses designated 'AF-S' if Nikon, HSM if Sigma. Don't know what the others makers call it.

Can't comment on the Tamron; you can get cheap telephotos for £99 but they won't be very good. If it's vcalue you're after I'd head for eBay and get a good s/h one.

[andy-xr]

That Tamron has some nasty fringing on it, I'd avoid unless you're buying purely on price. There's a Sigma 50-150 2.8 which gets somewhere near the 70-200 spot on FX. I have one and it's pretty sharp, but they kick about around the £500 mark.

There's also a Nikon 55-200, was about £160. Thats nasty as well, falloff is quite bad in the corners but centres are OK with nice colours.

70-300 G VR one is best for the money, it's not especially quick so any lowlight work is out unless you're going to be happy increasing ISO. I really like mine

[B16JUS]

ok so perhaps buy once and buy good lol

am i right in thinking thse would be good, they all nikon lenses and say af-s

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-Nikkor-55-200mm-55-200...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-Lens-AF-S-DX-VR-55-200...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-Nikkor-55-200-VR-AF-S-...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NIKON-55-200-DX-VR-f-4-5-6G-...

[NewNameNeeded]

The 55-200mm is ok, just not superb. If you've the kit lens that is typically sold with the D3000 and you are happy with it then you will find the 55-200 fine too. It's good value for money but there are much better lenses available (for much more money!).

You'll soon realise at least half the online photography community (not do much pistonheads) is obsessed with the small improvements in quality and the added usability between the cheaper consumer lenses and the 'pro' ones.

You can tell the difference, but at a big cost. If you are new to DSLRs and have lots to learn there is no reason why the Nikon 55-200mm or Tamron 70-300mm lenses won't suffice as starter lenses. Just be aware there are trade offs between price and performance, as with most things.

Welcome, and enjoy!

[B16JUS]

to be honest i thinkg the standard nikon lense is fine but agree from looking on some photography sites all the little details etc make a good shot.

think i will go for a 55-200 nikon lense, also want a nice lense for up close e.g at a car show and close to a car if anyone can recomend one

J