Which lens kit should I opt for Nikon D3100

[aveek]

<p>Hi,<br>

At present I am using <strong>Cosina C1s with a pentax normal lens, a sigma 70-210 and a Cosina 35-70mm</strong>. But I am planning to go digital very shortly. I liked the new <strong>Nikon D3100</strong>. But I am a bit confused about choosing lens. Is there any chance that my lenses would work with that body? Otherwise please suggest me a <strong>telephoto lens</strong> and a lens that would let me cover general purpose. <strong>Should I go with the default 18-55mm or choose something else buying just body of D3100?</strong> As my work may consist of <strong>bird photography </strong>also please suggest telephoto accordingly. If you have <strong>any other digital body worth considering around the same price range</strong> please mention.<br>

Thanks a lot in advance to all of you...</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>D3100 is only available new with the kit lens. nevertheless, the 18-55 isn't bad. for bird photography, unless you can afford a 300mm prime, i'd go with the 70-300 VR.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I am not sure about in India, but in the US, the only way you can buy a D3100 is to get it as a kit, including the 18-55mm AF-S VR lens. There are kits that include even more lenses, but you always have to buy the 18-55; you cannot buy the D3100 body only. Therefore, your options are somewhat limited although you of course can sell the 18-55 afterwards if you don't want it.</p>

<p>Since the OP is in India, the packaging combinations may be different.</p>

<p>If you are into bird photography, I would suggest getting a higher-end DSLR than the D3100, but cost could be an issue. Unfortunately, your existing lenses will not work on Nikon DSLRs.</p>

[donald_weston1]

<p>AS a owner and user of both the D3100 and 70-300VR, I have the following comments. For large birds that you can approach to a reasonable distance, in decent light, this combo may satisfy, for all other types of bird shooting this combo just won't do it. You need more focal length and higher fps, especially for birds in flight. Yes the old timers used a MF camera and got shots, but there were lots of misses too. Today, thanks to the wonderful technology we all can get our hands on. I own a D300 and will keep that until the D7000 is available or a direct replacement for the D300. The D3100 is a very nice camera, and has become my P&S as it were with either my 16-85 or 18-200. It will be my backup and main camera when circumstances are appropriate for its use. Image quality is at least as good as the D300 when you are using the camera within its subject range..at subject extremes use a better tool for the job....YMMV, Don</p>

[donald_weston1]

<p>From what I have heard about the 28-300VR Nikon, and I have one on order, I would look at this for the trip as most people say it is sharper then the 70-300mm VR lens. I have that one too, and it is just OK, but I like large prints, and I do not find it as sharp as my 16-85. Either a so-so copy or just pushing the lens/camera combo too far, here is an image from the weekend up in Maine. I would say it is sharp enough for web use and maybe small prints only...<br>

The 28-300mm VR maybe a good overall travel lens and good for India stuff too, but it ain't cheap..</p>

<div></div>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Donald makes good points about shooting birds. I've been able to shoot large birds like Canada Geese and Great Blue Herons with a 70-300 VR in good light, but smaller birds require a lot of cropping. For smaller birds you really need a much longer lens and they get very expensive very fast. Long teles are big heavy lenses that are best used on solid tripods, but for hand holding you will find that they balance better on a bigger heavier body. Even my 70-300 VR balances better on my D90 than on my D3100. You may find that the new smaller and lighter 55-300 VR balances better on a D3100. It's also less expensive.</p>

<p>How much can you spend? Is size and weight an issue?</p>

[keerthi]

<p>Hi!<br>

I've been in the same boat.I own a Cosina1S along with the 50mm normal lens.Jumped into the Nikon DSLR bandwagon with the then new D40X.I am now using the Cosina lens for macro pics using a reverse mount on my Nikon DSLR with passable results.Since you already own a few 'K' mount lenses you could consider going for the compatible Pentax system,but be aware that the lenses you own may not auto focus or meter on a DSLR.<br>

If you opt to buy a Nikon DSLR,you can wait until the second week of November by which time the new Tamron 70-300 zoom lens (Reviewed by Shun on P-Net) is supposed to be available in India.<br>

Welcome to the amazing world of DSLRs.<br /><br /></p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have found when photographing small wild birds there is never enough focal length. Larger tamer birds I can get away with less. IMHO 300mm in DX is the minimum, longer would be much better as well as a good tripod setup. Good AF and ISO preformance are also high on the priority list but above all else good technique.</p>

[aveek]

<p>Hi, Thanks to everyone for your valuable comments.<br /><br />@Eric & Shun : In India nikon website shows that it is available without lens kit. I don't know the actual scenario in market. It may differ. :-)<br /><br />@Donald & Mark : Thnks a lot for your detail analysis. Is it better to go with a combo of 18-55 and 55-300 or 16-85 and 70-300 or 28-300 alone? lets see... I am even thinking to opt for pentax bcoz of my old lenses.. <br /><br />@Keerthi : Thnks a lot for deviating my eyes to pentax.. :-) But I really dont have any fair idea about pentax dslrs. Can you suggest me which pentax body goes better within mid range slrs? Which one do u think should I opt for? and apart from lens compatibility how would you rate pentax dslrs over nikons quality?<br /><br />@Carl : right Carl. at this moment budget constraints wouldn't let me go over 300mm so better i should look for improving technique..<br /><br />Thank you again and as I am now looking for Pentax also so can you please mention pentax alternatives and give me a fair idea about them? Bcoz I hardly have any idea about pentax...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Aveek, I think you should consider Pentax, Sony, and Olympus in addition to Canon and Nikon. The lenses you have are not that good and should not influence your choice. It's not a good idea to put lower quality lenses on a good camera. The choice of lenses depends on several things, not the least of which is cost. I have not seen any reviews for the 55-300 VR, but I'm sure it's a pretty good lens just based on Nikon's track record. So if money is tight, a D3100 with the 18-55 VR and 55-300 VR would be a very good combination optically. I would shoot with those lenses for a while. They may fill all of your needs, or you may want to upgrade later when you have the money and a better idea of what you need.</p>

<p>I would not consider the 28-300 VR because 28mm is not wide enough on an APS-C body. If you want a superzoom, consider the Sigma 18-250 OS (OS is Sigma's version of VR), Tamron 18-270 VC, and Nikon 18-200 VR. Some people love superzooms and others don't. I have the Tamron and I love it. In general my opinion is that if you don't print larger than 8x10 or do a lot of cropping, you will not see much difference between a good superzoom and shorter ratio zooms. I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX II, and Nikon 70-300 VR, all very sharp lenses, and up to 8x10, I can't see a difference in sharpness between them and my 18-270 VC. Beyond 8x10 is a different story.</p>

<p>Think of lenses as tools, each with its own job that it does better than other tools. The 18-270 VC (or any superzoom) excells in those situations where you have to be able to go from wideangle to long telephoto in a hurry. Mine has saved me from missing many shots. They are also good for traveling light. Many times I'll go to the park or boardwalk with just the 18-270 VC on my camera. If on the other hand you shoot subjects that allow you to take your time, like landscapes, two or three shorter ratio zooms may be a better choice.</p>