Nikon D3200 - which is good lens 300MM

[shripad_joshi]

<p>I want to get 300 MM lens for D3200, any suggestion ?</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S. Not cheap, but excellent, and it will work well with your camera. (Beware of the non-AF-S version which you might find used--it's very good, but will not autofocus with the D3200.)</p>

<p>For a much less expensive option, the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR lens is very good. In this case, avoid the VR version, as it's not very good optically.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>If overall speed is not too much of an issue, the 55-300 zoom is a good bargain, reasonably sharp at 300, and a good companion to the 18-55 kit lens. Not the best choice for fast moving sports and poor lighting, but it has a lot of range and it's relatively inexpensive. It's VRII, which makes it a nice lens for traveling light without a tripod. Of course it's not a 300 prime, and can't compare with the 300 F4, but it's about a thousand dollars cheaper. Worth a look, at least.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>If you're <em><strong>not</strong></em> on a tight budget, then the 300mm 2.8 VRII is wonderful and about the best there is.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Mike, if the OP could afford the 300mm f2.8, he would have upgraded from the D3200 long before. It is best that the OP

can specify a budget, but one of the zooms that give you f5.6 at 300mm is more realistic.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Shun, that is pure assumption on your part*.....nothing more....and the OP seems to be wanting a prime, a 300mm lens. </p>

<p>Maybe we need some more info in budgetary terms <em><strong>and</strong></em> to it's intended future use? Wildlife maybe?</p>

<p>* ...albeit probable.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The 55-300VR DX is surprisingly good, and not very expensive; the Tamron 70-300VC makes a fine alternative too.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>+1 to recommending Tamron's 70-300mm SP VC lens. I don't believe that you'll get better image quality from anything else in its price range. Or, if budget is <em>really</em> tight, then Sigma's APO "macro" 70-300mm zoom is also a great bargain. Note: <strong>not</strong> the non-APO version. And unfortunately the build quality of the Sigma isn't that great.</p>

<p>Any 300mm AF prime is going to cost a lot more than a zoom, unless you buy used.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>mm If you like a zoom , do not need a fast lens, you could also get just a little bit more "adventurous" and opt for something like a Sigma AF APO 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM<b> ....</b></p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Well,<em><strong> if</strong></em> we're going zoom....Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX APO IF DG HSM</p>

<p>However, mine needed re-chipping to LV focus with the D5100. I didn't bother, as I don't use LV at airshows!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>70-300VR zoom is an EXCELLENT match for one of the small Nikon cameras. Tamron's that Rodeo Joe and Wouter mention should be a great choice, too.<br /><br />I also would assume that a D3200 user is not looking for a 1500+ dollar lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nobody's mentioned the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma yet? Or the 300 f/2? Or the 300-800 Sigma? (The problem with open questions...)<br />

<br />

I think we can say, in terms of image quality, 55-300 < 70-300 VR (or VC Tamron) < 300mm f/4 (probably either AF-S or the new VR version), and the edge probably goes to the really expensive f/2.8 options. The 18-300 lenses are probably lower quality optically at 300mm, and the same is true of the 28-300mm FX lens - though you're obviously paying for flexibility in these, and wouldn't pick them if you just want a 300mm. Price and weight increases radically going through the DX zoom, FX f/5.6 zooms, f/4 primes and f/2.8 options (and ultra-exotic f/2). Given the cost of the camera, I would expect it's unlikely that anything more expensive than an f/4 prime is an obvious option, but that <i>is</i> an assumption, and it's your call - but sit down while you look up the prices. The problem here is that the D3200 is actually a pretty high resolution sensor - getting a lens that can do significantly better than just cropping the image is quite challenging.<br />

<br />

I was deeply disappointed in the performance of my 150-500 Sigma, even on a D700 (less demanding than a D3200), but to be fair most of my complaints were at the 500mm end, and it's probably not too bad at 300mm. Although it's huge for a slow 300mm lens. There seems to be some sample variation - YMMV.<br />

<br />

Good luck!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since the OP is using an entry-level D3200, a lens that goes to 300mm with matching price range and size/weight should be most appropriate. A few years ago, I had an opportunity to test the Tamron 70-300mm VC (VR) lens Rodeo Joe mentioned earlier: http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/</p>

<p>While it is not in the same league as Nikon's 300mm/f4 AF-S, both in terms of optical quality and price, I am very pleased with its optics, which is excellent for a 70-300mm zoom, but its construction quality is merely so so. For someone who uses an entry-level DSLR, that Tamron is also a good choice.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Agreed, Shun - the price of the camera is most likely the best guide to the amount of money that Shripad is expecting to spend (in the absence of that being explicit), and the Tamron has a good reputation for price/performance. I only listed the other options so that Shripad could make a different decision if that's appropriate. The D3200 has approximately as good a sensor as is available on a DX Nikon, and if there's been no need for the upgrades to frame rate and autofocus that other bodies provide, there's no reason that a D3200 shouldn't be just as effective attached to a big supertele as a D7100 would be - and there's always the "I need it to work with a D3200, because I already know that whatever's suggested will work with my D4 that is less demanding on lenses" interpretation to the question. We can't really say that the assumption is guaranteed to be correct.<br />

<br />

So, yes, the Tamron, or the 55-300 or 70-300 VR Nikkors that bracket it, are most likely the obvious choice. But there's no harm in giving a more complete answer (and I think we've made it clear that the price/quality trade-off of the big lenses is unlikely to be appealing, even if the absolute quality is, so the suggestions weren't out of context). Besides, you never know when the next person to search for a 300mm is going to come past this thread, and maybe they'll have a D3x.<br />

<br />

I've lusted after a 400 f/2.8 ever since I got an Eos 300D and knew that they existed. Knowing what we'd like to buy eventually doesn't necessarily hurt in the context of knowing what I'm going to buy tomorrow - you never know when a rich relative might have passed away and financial situations will change. But I apologise if Shripad feels that all I've done is distract from the most obviously helpful answer.</p>