Which lens please for Nikon D5300?

Hi everyone. I’m looking at two lenses:

 

• Sigma 18-250 £319, (reduced down from £329)
   
   
  
• Tamron Dii PZD 18-270 £270
   
  

I would like to buy one of them. At the moment I have a 18-105 lens which has done me well, but when I had my Pentax I owned an 18-200 lens which I liked.

 

I do landscapes, but also costume jewellery and portraits (occasionally) Please can you tell me which is the better lens to go for?

 

Many thanks.

You really make you decision by the ballot???

I've never used either one of these, but if the Sigma is listed as a "macro," it has a better maximum reproduction ratio, 1:3, vs the Tamron's 1:4. This makes the Sigma more suitable for photographing small objects, which you do. You can compare the specs here. If the Sigma you are looking at is not listed as a macro, it might be an older model, with no advantage in reproduction ratio. If that is the case, I can't help you. Edited January 14, 2018 by Hector Javkin

Thanks for your replies.

 

You really make you decision by the ballot???

 

Yes, I want to se which gets the most.

 

Thanks Hecktor, is there a Nikon version please?

Both lenses are even more compromised than the 18-105 you already own; you are actually stepping down instead of up. Nikon makes a 18-200 (not very good) and a quite expensive 18-300 (not that great either). The only lens that offers a slight increase in focal length range and an improvement over the 18-105 is the Nikon 18-140. If you need longer focal lengths, then you are better off adding a 55-200 or 70-300 instead of a any of the all-in-one that you are considering. Your D5300 may require a firmware update to work with AF-P lenses though (https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000035705&configured=1&lang=en_GB).

This is not an answer to your question but if I have the D5300 I would get the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8.

Which Pentax did you own? A superzoom lens that made sense on a 6MP body may not with a modern high-res sensor - you'll mostly be capturing blur and optical aberrations, not image detail. Going much further than the 18-140 with a zoom from any manufacturer is pushing your luck - lenses that "do everything" tend to do everything badly, and modern sensors are good enough to expose this.

 

I'd look at the Tamron 60mm macro (or possibly the Nikkor 85mm micro or Tamron 90mm) as a capable lens for both portraits and for close-up shots of jewelry.

 

For landscape, I'd suggest a wider zoom with a limited range is more useful than something with a big telephoto end. Perhaps a 10-20mm? Often the kit 18-55 is a pretty good option.

 

A 200mm lens is useful for wildlife, sports etc. where you want to isolate the subject and can't get close. The 55-200 is reasonably capable at that for its price; the new 70-300 is better. But cheap options don't control the background enough (at short range) to be ideal portrait lenses. It's relatively rare for a long lens to be useful for landscapes, though it does sometimes happen.

 

All superzooms are compromised. If you're out shooting in a sandstorm and can't change lenses, so be it. If you're shooting a kid's football game and want to get shots both up close and on the far side of the pitch, the compromise may be worth the convenience. But with a camera that lets you change lenses, often the best choice is to do so.

 

I hope that helps!

If you're spending that sort of money, then buy Tamron's SP VC 70-300mm zoom (but not the non-VC version) You'll get more reach and far better image quality than any 10x 'superzoom'. Such lenses have very compromised image quality and show a lot of distortion.

 

Together with your existing 18-105 lens, you'd have a kit to tackle almost any subject. Apart from the costume jewelry; for that you'd be better off buying a proper macro lens.

 

You need to decide where your priority lies. With jewelry shots and portraits, or getting more reach for wildlife and such.

Edited January 14, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

Neither.

IMHO, the 18-105 that you have is good enough for most of your stuff.

 

If you want to do closeup jewelry stuff, get a closeup lens/filter set to screw onto the front of your 18-105, or get a macro lens.

 

If you want to reach further than the 18-105 can, then you need to determine how much magnification you need.

I would get a 70-300 VR. The 55-200 is only a 2x improvement on the the long end.

Super zooms that are beyond 10x zoom are convenient as an all-in-one, but you loose image quality. They are also heavier. I have the Nikon 18-140, and I would not want a heavier GP lens.

I did not look at the options, just want to chime in and say be sure whatever you buy has VR. That is pure magic for me.

 

Recently sold my 18-105 and kept my 18-200 after extensive testing and fiddling.

It was a hard decision. Really came down to a coin toss.

Nikon themselves have no one but actually two different 18-300mm DX lenses. Since the OP mentioned British Pounds, I assume the OP is UK based, but these Nikon USA links should provide useful information:

• AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR | 18-300mm Lenses
  
• AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens | Interchangeable Lens for Nikon DX Format D-SLR
  

The two versions involve different compromises. The one that is f5.6 @ 300mm is big, using 77mm filters. The one that is only f6.3 is smaller but the lens is very slow at 300mm; expect AF to be slow and may hunt under dim conditions.

 

If the OP is concerned about optical quality, I would say keep the 18-105 and add a 70-300mm lens to get you to 300mm. There are many Nikon and third-party options for 70-300mm type lenses.

 

One single lens that can go from 18mm all the way to 300mm will involves a lot of compromises in term of size, image quality, and cost, but that is the most convenient option.

Neither one.There is no really good all in one lens. I agree with BeBu, the 17-55/2.8 is excellent but not cheap. If you need or want more reach add something like an 80-200 or a 300.

 

Rick H.

I guess I should ask: Louise, can you see how many of your Pentax photos were actually taken at the telephoto (100-200mm) end of the zoom? The uses you describe wouldn't normally be associated with a long lens, suggesting there are better places to spend your money (like the wide angles, a macro that could double as a portrait prime, or the faster normal zoom lenses others suggest). If you did use the long end a lot, it would be interesting to know what for - it might guide our advice.

 

As others said, I'd go with the new DX 70-300 or the 70-200 f/4 as appreciably better ways to get more reach if you really need it - or a 55-200 on a budget. But it depends what you're doing.

I hope those people suggesting the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor were joking.

 

For a start, a decent used version will cost well over the OP's budget, and secondly it would be a terrible choice to use on a D5300.

 

No VR, twice the weight and doubling the size of the camera are just a few of its drawbacks. A lens with VR (VC, OS, or whatever) will more than make up for not having an f/2.8 aperture.

 

I have the 17-55 Nikkor, and it hardly ever gets used on my D7200 because of its weight and size. Image quality is very good, but equalled by that of a smaller, lighter and much cheaper Tamron SP f/2.8 17-50 zoom. If I need the f/2.8 aperture it's the Tamron I reach for first. However, I don't see how either of the above lenses fits the OP's desire for a longer focal length.

I can't vouch for the DX normal zooms since I've never owned a DX Nikon. However:

 

However, I don't see how either of the above lenses fits the OP's desire for a longer focal length.

 

They certainly don't. But I'm confused by:

 

I do landscapes, but also costume jewellery and portraits (occasionally)

 

...which also doesn't say "longer focal length" to me. Those needs would probably not be best met by an f/2.8 normal zoom either, though.

Hi everyone :)

 

Which Pentax did you own?

The K30 until the sensor went. I googled it and it's a common problem on the model which is a pain.

 

Recently sold my 18-105 and kept my 18-200 after extensive testing and fiddling.

What 18-200 lens you have?

Thanks, Louise. Sorry the K-30 died. I'm a little surprised you found an 18-200 to behave acceptably on a 16MP body, but your call - if you can, I'd certainly shoot some test shots with whatever you get while you can still avoid being committed to it. I used to use a 28-200 all the time on my D700, but when I moved to a D800 the limitations of the lens were immediately obvious and irritating. I've very little personal experience with one, but the consensus from most people has been that all these lenses are a problem on a modern high-resolution body. I'd expect you to do better just cropping from a shorter lens - but for some, these lenses are convenient.

 

Despite your stated uses, you definitely want more reach, then? And you couldn't live with a 55-200, 55-300 or the new 70-300 as a complement to your 18-105?

As Dieter said. The only lens I'd see as an upgrade from the 18-105VR with a wider zoomrange is the Nikon 18-140VR. All others - and especially those with more than 12x zoomrange - are going to be a step back optically.

If you need the additional zoomrange, consider the 55-300VR or one of the 70-300VR lenses instead, or for the jewelry and portraits a macro-lens like the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro, Nikon 60mm f/2.8 or something like the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (maybe a touch long for portraits, but doable).

Rodeo Joe I have to admit and did say that the 17-55 is not a cheap lens but I've always thought it is one of the best DX Nikkors ever made. Super quality and fast, if it is bigger and heavier then that's not a big deal to me. If those are problems for the OP then it is not the right choice. As for VR, I've never found that to be of much help and don't use it on the one lens I have with that feature. The OP also is interested in doing several different things that are going to need different lenses for best results. For a lot of people a do everything lens is where they are happiest but for me it doesn't work and if it can be brought in with the budget I'd recommend buying more than one for different uses.

 

Rick H.

Hi everyone :)

 

 

The K30 until the sensor went. I googled it and it's a common problem on the model which is a pain.

 

 

What 18-200 lens you have?

 

I've got the early, not VR II, Nikon 18-200 VR

It's fashionable to bash it - it is a lot better than the bashes acknowledge

Well, in the past I had a Tamron 18-200, and it deserves any bashing. From about 120mm on, it just wasn't sharp until about f/11. And that was on a 6MP Nikon D50, so not exactly a demanding resolution.

 

Sure, these long range zooms are very convenient, and there is little wrong with that. But high quality optics, they're not. Fine for many occassions where the resulting image isn't expected to be printed large, cropped a lot or used in any scenario where the weakness will show up. But for more critical use, they really do not hold up, and if people mention that, it's not bashing but simply acknowledging the limits of such lenses.

 

Personally, while I can see the lure of convenience, these lenses for me defeat the purpose of getting a good camera. Current bridge cameras deliver decent images and do the convenience thing much better still.

Hi guys. I'm looking for a lens where I don't have to keep changing all the time. The Sigma is more expensive then the Tamron, but does it have the better glass? Also has anyone used a website called Camera Jungle?

Current bridge cameras deliver decent images and do the convenience thing much better still.

 

Technically, few bridge cameras provide you with the optical viewfinder of a DSLR, if that's valuable to you. Superzooms kind of make sense if you just downsize the image (snapbridge-style) and don't want to pixel-peep. And technically you tend to get a little more absolute aperture at the long end of the zoom than you would by cropping. It's a bit of a waste of a 24MP camera, but if you're trying to get images onto social media and don't like editing, it's kind of an interface to that.

 

Hi guys. I'm looking for a lens where I don't have to keep changing all the time. The Sigma is more expensive then the Tamron, but does it have the better glass? Also has anyone used a website called Camera Jungle?

 

Here are DxO's measurements of the Sigma and Tamron you mention, along with the current 55-200mm Nikon of similar price for comparison (they don't have the new 70-300 yet). I find going to "measurements", then looking at the "field map" under "sharpness" to be most informative. Without personal experience of these lenses, the Tamron looks marginally less awful in these tests - but play with the focal length and aperture settings on the graphs and see what parts of the range and field matter most to you. Here's the Tamron measured against the 18-105 you have and the more expensive 18-140. It's not awful over the shorter range; the 18-140 is clearly better at 140mm than the 18-105 is at 105mm (for twice the price), and the 200mm+ end of the Tamron looks horrible by comparison according to the tests. Photozone reviewed the Tamron here which may give you more information (they don't seem to have touched the Sigma).

 

Do you actually find yourself running out of range at the long end of the 18-105mm? The kinds of subject you mentioned didn't sound like you would. If you're doing that, what kind of subject are you shooting? It might affect the best option.

 

I think I've heard of Camera Jungle, but I've not used them. I've tended to stick to WEx, Park and Mifsuds (or Gray's for the exotic stuff).

Andrew, I just was a bit hyperbolic with the bridge cameras (though a number of them they're often "good enough"). Just to show how much my Tamron 18-200 cured me from the idea of cheap, wide-range zooms. Changing lenses - even if frequently - is worth the miniscule effort easily.

 

Louise, frankly between these two lenses, I'd toss a coin. If you insist on a convenience zoom, you accept the optical compromise that they are. Don't make the choice more complicated than it needs to be: the differences between these lenses will be very small. I'd simply get the cheapest one.

Louise, frankly between these two lenses, I'd toss a coin. If you insist on a convenience zoom, you accept the optical compromise that they are. Don't make the choice more complicated than it needs to be: the differences between these lenses will be very small. I'd simply get the cheapest one.

As Wouter points out, any 18-200 DX lens is going to involve a lot of optical compromises. When the long end is beyond 200mm to 250, 270 or even 300mm, it is only going to be worse, especially when the maximum aperture on the long end drops below f5.6 to f6.3, etc., expect poor auto focus performance on the long end.

 

If the convenience to have everything in just one lens is important to you, just accept the compromises and get one of those lenses.