Sell 55-200mm VR II for 50mm f/1.8

[shanx]

Hi all,

 

I am fairly new to photography and I am just getting started. I do use my iPhone 6s plus ( previously the 6 ) for everyday snapshots but wanted to get into photography a little more seriously.I read a lot of posts and reviews about a good DSLR to start with and finally decided on the D3300 since so many sites and reviewers claim it to be a good camera to start with. So I picked up a D3300 with the 18-55mm VR II and the 55-200mm VR II from BestBuy for 500 USD. 

 

I have been playing around and taking an unnecessary amount of pics everyday to familiarize myself with the camera and its features( mainly the M,A,S modes of the camera). And I find myself using the 18-55 way more than the 55-200mm. I want to start with portrait and night photography besides doing landscape and street photography and was considering a prime lens like the 50mm f/1.8G. Would it be a good idea to sell the 55-200mm as it is brand new and I hardly feel its need right away or should I keep it and save for a 50mm? Like I mentioned before, I am very new to the world of DSLRs and what I have mentioned is from what I have learned in the past few days, so if I am wrong about anything please do correct me.

 

Any advice on this matter is appreciated. Tips on how to get better at photography is also highly appreciated.

 

Regards and thanks in advance. 

[Claes]

i would not sell the 55-200mm, because it is a different type of lens. you may want to use it when you heed the reach of a 200mm. i would save up for the 50mm. 

for landscapes you can use a tele lens. i do that occasionally. look at this video how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zresAM2eXs

[Bsmith]

I would personally keep the 55-200mm lens, the reach of it is very usefull, although in the beginning it's hard to use it the right way, besides you have 50mm on your 18-55mm lens, although I admit that the prime 50mm will be a bit sharper then your 18-55mm lens at 50mm, the overal difference should be minimal and considering you lose the whole 55-200mm range in exchange for a little sharpness on a focal length you are able to reach already I would say it's quite a bad trade off, 50mm is quite a decent focal length to start out with in my opinion, but once you start going to places like a zoo you quickly find out how usefull it is to have a bigger reach, because then a 50mm lens is to wide and when you start cropping you will lose alot of quality.

[ShadowCaptain]

 because then a 50mm lens is to wide and when you start cropping you will lose alot of quality.

 

I dont think I could ever call a 50mm on an APSC body too wide considering its like having an 75mm lens on the front !

 

and a 50mm prime wipes the floor with the kit lens

 

 

 

OP - Just save up and get maybe a 35mm prime or 24/28mm  -  - or heck just the 50 considering its price

 

A tele lens is always useful to have and you might miss it when its gone

[Bsmith]

I dont think I could ever call a 50mm on an APSC body too wide considering its like having an 75mm lens on the front !

 

and a 50mm prime wipes the floor with the kit lens

 

-snip-

 

Wide might have been the wrong word, it's more like not being able to get the subject properly in frame due to the distance being to big(I can't find the word...)

From my personal experience(or just bad purchase) most modern kitlenses aren't that much worse in quality compared to cheap primes.

[ShadowCaptain]

Wide might have been the wrong word, it's more like not being able to get the subject properly in frame due to the distance being to big(I can't find the word...)

From my personal experience(or just bad purchase) most modern kitlenses aren't that much worse in quality compared to cheap primes.

 

No your terminology was correct, I just dont understand how you think a 75mm equivalent focal length is too far away, I even find 50mm on my full frame camera too "close" tending to find myself shooting at 24 or 28mm (full frame) to fit things in

 

generally with a 50mm prime or similar you tend to have to stand quite far away from things to get stuff in shot - the only thing they excel at being close up with portraits , when you want to get nice and close

They will still be sharper as its a much simpler lens design with higher quality optics plus it will be a much brighter lens - since  the kit lens is f4.5 at 55mm not f1.8 at 50mm- so you can get a much faster shutter speeds at lower ISO meaning a sharper image

[Bsmith]

No your terminology was correct, I just dont understand how you think a 75mm equivalent focal length is too far away, I even find 50mm on my full frame camera too "close" tending to find myself shooting at 24 or 28mm (full frame) to fit things in

 

generally with a 50mm prime or similar you tend to have to stand quite far away from things to get stuff in shot - the only thing they excel at being close up with portraits , when you want to get nice and close

They will still be sharper as its a much simpler lens design with higher quality optics plus it will be a much brighter lens - since  the kit lens is f4.5 at 55mm not f1.8 at 50mm- so you can get a much faster shutter speeds at lower ISO meaning a sharper image

 

The zoo where I generally go to has situations where animals can lay in such a way(which they always do) that a 75mm equivalent gives you a to big shot, since it includes the pieces I personally wouldn't like in the shot.

Although that might be more due to the situation I'm personally used to, kinda forgot that OP would be mainly focusing on portraits etc(something which isn't really my staste) and good point on the diafragma, one of the things I forget about quickly when answering something.

So here come rare words: I admit I was wrong there and should have given it a second thought before saying something.

 

But still, selling the 55-200mm doesnt seem as a good idea since you never know in what kind of situation you end up.

[ShadowCaptain]

But still, selling the 55-200mm doesnt seem as a good idea since you never know in what kind of situation you end up.

 

Thats why I go out with like 5 lenses in my little messenger bag

 

I always have my 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8  and usually a prime or two

[Bsmith]

Thats why I go out with like 5 lenses in my little messenger bag

 

I always have my 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8  and usually a prime or two

 

On lenses that is nearly the ideal situation yeah, I bought a 18-200 because I was on a thight budget and I keep it as back up for when my nifty fifty aint right.

But your situation is something I would like to upgrade to.

[ShadowCaptain]

On lenses that is nearly the ideal situation yeah, I bought a 18-200 because I was on a thight budget and I keep it as back up for when my nifty fifty aint right.

But your situation is something I would like to upgrade to.

 

nearly, planing on a 14mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4, maybe replace my 50mm with a 0.95 

 

Should have everything covered then

[shanx]

Thanks for the replies guys! 

 

I will keep the 55 200mm now and also start saving up for a 50mm prime.

 

Since you guys mentioned that the 50mm will behave more like a 75mm given the APS-C sensor in the D3300, would it be better to get the 35mm  since that will be closer to 50mm focal length ( 52.5mm if the multiplier is 1.5x right?)?

 

I won't just be concentrating on portraits and landscapes but that is where I would like to start and learn. Also what is a good place to get lenses from?

 

Regards

[Klerk]

35mm is a better all around prime lens. The 50mm is much much better for portraits though. I have both lenses and I use them depending what type of situation I will be shooting. I would suggest testing both focal lengths on you current 18-50mm kit lens and see which one you better fits your needs.

[rmac52]

I would get the 35 1.8 over the 50. 35 is more versitile on a crop body like the d3300. I would keep the 55-200 though.

[shanx]

Thanks for the input guys! But I did run into a little problem with my D3300. After about 20 pics, the camera would get a little hot. Since there was time to return it, I did so and got refunded. 

 

Also spending some time with the d3300, I didnt quite feel that comfortable with the autofocussing. So was thinking of picking up a d5300 body(600$) plus a used 50mm to start with ( 80$ from B&H).

 

Is that a good starter lens?

[ALwin]

Thanks for the input guys! But I did run into a little problem with my D3300. After about 20 pics, the camera would get a little hot. Since there was time to return it, I did so and got refunded. 

 

Also spending some time with the d3300, I didnt quite feel that comfortable with the autofocussing. So was thinking of picking up a d5300 body(600$) plus a used 50mm to start with ( 80$ from B&H).

 

Is that a good starter lens?

 

It became hot after shooting only 20 photos?  This is strange, I've heard of cameras over heating while shooting video but never before after just taking 20 photos.

 

Where do you live and what is the average temperature outside?

 

A lot of people buy 50mm prime lenses for various reasons, but personally I don't think anyone should consider it as an starter lens for a beginner.  Plus, on a cropped sensor camera like the D3300 or D5300, due to the smaller size of the sensor the field of view will be equivalent to about a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera.

 

While a 50 prime lens will definitely have better optical quality than a standard kit lens such as the 18-55, I think the zoom lens is better for a beginner.  Even better would be like an 18-105 kit lens.  A zoom lens will teach you about changes in perspective and image compression/expansion effects of different focal lengths.

 

A prime lens is better for someone who already understands how different focal lengths can change the scene, and wishes to concentrate on playing with composition and forcing themselves to "work the scene" because of the fixed focal length's limitation.

[shanx]

I know it is strange that it would do that. I live in Arizona but right now the temps are between -1 to 11 degrees celsius! 

 

I am going to hold off a little longer before i make a purchase and so will look into the 18-105mm too!

 

Thank you for the input!

[Captain_Slow]

nearly, planing on a 14mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4, maybe replace my 50mm with a 0.95 

 

Should have everything covered then

 

WHERE IS THERE A 14mm F1.4????

 

also the 50mm 0.95 is not really a serious lens, it's fun to shoot but not sharp and dof is way to thin to shoot anything off a tripod

[Captain_Slow]

Thanks for the input guys! But I did run into a little problem with my D3300. After about 20 pics, the camera would get a little hot. Since there was time to return it, I did so and got refunded. 

 

Also spending some time with the d3300, I didnt quite feel that comfortable with the autofocussing. So was thinking of picking up a d5300 body(600$) plus a used 50mm to start with ( 80$ from B&H).

 

Is that a good starter lens?

 

what focus mode are you using? for any non action photography you'll probably end up using the center focus point, which will be the same cross type point on the 3300 as the 5300.

 

as for the lens if I had to get one cheap prime i'd go for the 35mm f1.8g as opposed to the 50mm f1.8

[shanx]

I am learning how to use manual focussing but 90% of the time rely on autofocus. So will it be better to get the d3300 again and save the extra cash for lens?

 

Also how good is the sony a58 with 18-55mm kit lens?

[ALwin]

I am learning how to use manual focussing but 90% of the time rely on autofocus. So will it be better to get the d3300 again and save the extra cash for lens?

 

Also how good is the sony a58 with 18-55mm kit lens?

 

With Digital SLRs it is slightly tougher to get accurate manual focus than with old film SLRs.  Old film SLRs had a very nice focusing screen added to the viewfinder, with Digital SLRs the viewfinder manual focus is not as accurate, especially if the AF system is not accurately calibrated so you could be slightly off even if the in-focus indicator dot is showing.  With DSLRs it is better to use live view for manual focusing as you can zoom in.

[shanx]

@ALwin Okay! I am learning so much everyday about photography ( that too without a DSLR right now ).

 

I have finally managed to narrow my choices down to the following two cameras:

 

Pentax K50 with 18 55 and 55 200 ( $459)

 

Nikon D5300 with 18 55 VR II ( $756)

 

Is the D5300 actually worth all the extra amount? I will invest in a 35mm/50mm in a few months regardless of which camera I get. Please weigh in and tell me which is better. Also I plan to update to a better APS-C body  ( and then get more than the supplied lenses ) in a couple of years when I can actually take pictures worthy of the camera in my hand. So right now I want to stick to either of these.

 

Need advice a little urgently as I will be going on a vacation in like 3 days and want a decent camera to take pics!!

 

Thank you!

[ALwin]

With Digital SLRs it is slightly tougher to get accurate manual focus than with old film SLRs.  Old film SLRs had a very nice focusing screen added to the viewfinder, with Digital SLRs the viewfinder manual focus is not as accurate, especially if the AF system is not accurately calibrated so you could be slightly off even if the in-focus indicator dot is showing.  With DSLRs it is better to use live view for manual focusing as you can zoom in.

 

I need to correct myself a bit.

 

When you look in the viewfinder of a camera, there is always at some part of the viewfinder display a focus indicator.  Regardless of whether you use Auto or Manual focus, it will tell you if your focus is spot on or you need to focus forward or backward.  When you use Auto focus, the camera makes all the judgements and the motor turns the focusing lens inside the camera.  But when you use Manual focus, the AF system inside the camera will still make a judgement and the indicator will tell you when it detects that the focus is spot on but it is your fingers that are turning the lens to focus and you could be off by a small degree even if the indicator tells you that the focus is spot on.  Unlike the old film SLR days where you can mane an assessment using the viewfinder to check whether the scene is in focus or not, with digital cameras the only way to know if your camera is in focus or not is that indicator.  The viewfinder in modern digital cameras do not come with a good focusing screen and the scene you are seeing through it is too small.  I've done MF looking through the viewfinder and relying only on that indicator before... but when I look at the photos taken on my large computer display I see that the focus is slightly off.

 

Your fingers cannot make as accurate micro adjustments as the motor inside the lens.

 

snip

 

If I were choosing, I would go for the Nikon because I believe it's more popular than the Pentax and you might be able to find spare parts wherever you go.  Keep in mind though I am biased towards Nikon because that's the system I primarily use.

[shanx]

I've done MF looking through the viewfinder and relying only on that indicator before... but when I look at the photos taken on my large computer display I see that the focus is slightly off.

 

Your fingers cannot make as accurate micro adjustments as the motor inside the lens.

 

 

This part is so true! I tried taking a few close up shots and what seemed to be perfectly in focus on the small LCD on the camera turned to be really out of focus on my pc

 

Thank you for taking time to explain these things. I appreciate it. Also I had one last question- if I were to go for the Pentax one just to learn the basics, would it be a good idea? I would save the rest of the money for a full frame and really good glass. Will the Nikon still be a better option? I know you mentioned that you are more invested in the Nikon ecosystem, but I would still like to know if the Pentax is worth it for starting with. 

 

Thank you once again!

[ALwin]

snip

 

All I can say is Pentax also makes good cameras.  You'd have to read some reviews about that particular model.

 

As for investment, as long as you do not heavily invest into one manufacturer's ecosystem it is easy to migrate to another.  But if you've invested heavily, like I have in Nikon, it becomes harder to migrate.

[shanx]

All I can say is Pentax also makes good cameras.  You'd have to read some reviews about that particular model.

 

As for investment, as long as you do not heavily invest into one manufacturer's ecosystem it is easy to migrate to another.  But if you've invested heavily, like I have in Nikon, it becomes harder to migrate.

 

 I see. I have read quite a few reviews and they all seemed positive as long as I am doing still photography ( which i primarily need it for ) except for the fact that the lens makes a lot of sound while auto focussing, but I can live with that.

 

As far as investing heavily, apart from the mentioned lenses ( 18-55 and 55-200 and the 50mm or 35mm) I wont invest into it. I would rather save it for a good body and lens collection when I get more experienced. ( Maybe a D610 or something in a couple of years with glass to match ??? )

 

Thank you for your quick responses btw!