# for my next lens



## piperknitsRN (Dec 14, 2011)

I _really_ have to slam on the brakes for now with buying new lenses--especially since I'm still learning with the ones I already have (and oh boy, what a learning curve it is!). But, I still like to dream. I know lenses are quite individual to what you like to take pictures of and my specific needs wouldn't necessarily drive someone else's purchase. I like to take pictures of stuff I see when out on walks, but I live in a larger city where my safety is of some concern (almost makes me want to go back to a more unobstrusive point and shoot for those purposes) and I still feel a little odd/like a mugging risk with my camera, so I try to be careful when I'm out and about. It's just harder to blend into the background when you have this larger-than-usual camera hanging around your neck. 

But, for the purposes of taking pictures of bunnies (who are often doing adorably cute things at a distance--at least, mine seem to) I'm thinking telephoto zoom lens... but I don't want to pay an arm and a leg (I'm on a budget--at least, when I'm being sensible about it, I am!). What would be some good choices (and maybe I'm wrong about the type of lens I'm interested in) that won't break the bank?


----------



## OneTwoThree (Dec 14, 2011)

Lenses and budget don't really go hand in hand, unfortunately. If you get an off brand Tamron or Sigma the price (and unfortunately quality as well) is less. An 18-200 is said to be a nice lens, I have an 18-105mm 3.5 that I like. Your primes will be your sharpest lenses though, and the 1.8 will come in handy in lower light. You can get a really nice telefoto lenses with 2.8 like the 70-200mm, but its about...$2400


----------



## MikeScone (Dec 14, 2011)

If you're looking for something longer, there is a companion kit lens to the 18-55mm zoom you have, a 55-200mm. It comes in VR and non-VR versions, and I'd get the VR version. Adorama's got it on sale right now for only $146 (after a $100 instant rebate), which is a bargain - see http://www.adorama.com/NK55200VRU.html. That would give you the 18-200mm range in two lenses. For $100 more, you can get a 55-300mm and run the range all the way up to 300mm, which is the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm terms. (See this thread for examples of different focal lengths).

There's also a 70-300mm VR. I have one, and like it very much. The gap between 55 and 70mm is not an issue, really, but that lens is significantly more expensive than the 55-200mm or 55-300mm - $400 in refurb form, closer to $600 new. Given the option, I'd probably go with the 55-300mm now (it's a new lens, not available when I got my 70-300VR). 

You could cover the 18-200mm range in one lens, which I also have - again, it's much more expensive, $850 more or less.


----------



## piperknitsRN (Dec 15, 2011)

Mike: Oh, options, options! Wow... I might just have to get that 55-200mm lens... So cheap! Wow. Amazing... so many options.... Thanks!

*MikeScone wrote: *


> If you're looking for something longer, there is a companion kit lens to the 18-55mm zoom you have, a 55-200mm. It comes in VR and non-VR versions, and I'd get the VR version. Adorama's got it on sale right now for only $146 (after a $100 instant rebate), which is a bargain - see http://www.adorama.com/NK55200VRU.html. That would give you the 18-200mm range in two lenses. For $100 more, you can get a 55-300mm and run the range all the way up to 300mm, which is the equivalent of a 450mm in 35mm terms. (See this thread for examples of different focal lengths).
> 
> There's also a 70-300mm VR. I have one, and like it very much. The gap between 55 and 70mm is not an issue, really, but that lens is significantly more expensive than the 55-200mm or 55-300mm - $400 in refurb form, closer to $600 new. Given the option, I'd probably go with the 55-300mm now (it's a new lens, not available when I got my 70-300VR).
> 
> You could cover the 18-200mm range in one lens, which I also have - again, it's much more expensive, $850 more or less.


----------



## piperknitsRN (Dec 15, 2011)

*OneTwoThree wrote: *


> Lenses and budget don't really go hand in hand, unfortunately. If you get an off brand Tamron or Sigma the price (and unfortunately quality as well) is less. An 18-200 is said to be a nice lens, I have an 18-105mm 3.5 that I like. Your primes will be your sharpest lenses though, and the 1.8 will come in handy in lower light. You can get a really nice telefoto lenses with 2.8 like the 70-200mm, but its about...$2400


Only $2400? Chunk change! (Ha ha. I _wish_.) :biggrin2:


----------



## OneTwoThree (Dec 15, 2011)

*piperknitsRN wrote: *


> *OneTwoThree wrote: *
> 
> 
> > Lenses and budget don't really go hand in hand, unfortunately. If you get an off brand Tamron or Sigma the price (and unfortunately quality as well) is less. An 18-200 is said to be a nice lens, I have an 18-105mm 3.5 that I like. Your primes will be your sharpest lenses though, and the 1.8 will come in handy in lower light. You can get a really nice telefoto lenses with 2.8 like the 70-200mm, but its about...$2400
> ...


Haha I know right? It's my dream lens <3


----------



## piperknitsRN (Dec 15, 2011)

*OneTwoThree wrote: *


> *piperknitsRN wrote: *
> 
> 
> > *OneTwoThree wrote: *
> ...


Well, one day, when I win the lottery, I plan to buy that lens ;-). 2.8 on a 70-200mm would be <<amazing>>. 

I got my UV filter for my 50mm prime and so I played around with it this evening and I think I like it better than the 35mm prime... can't say why that would be, though, at this point. 

I like the prime lenses in general, though it does mean I have to move around a fair bit--but that doesn't really bother me either, since this whole photography thing is so new to me, I don't really know any better, I guess. Tomorrow I may take the camera out into the U district (not the safest of places, but in broad daylight, I lull myself into a false sense of security) and try to get some pictures on the street. I have to be careful, but I got some fun snapshots in my neighborhood a few days ago, using just the kit lens (it was a sunny day).


----------

