Which Lens for D60?

[kenny]

Relatively new to DLSR and have Nikon D60, currently with just the kit lens.

Was looking to add a new lens before my next Disney trip. Choices are below:

-Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD
-Sigma Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
-nikon Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR
-nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

Was leaning towards one of the zoom lens as opposed to the Nikon 35mm. For as much the prime would be great for Disney, thinking I would get more use out from a zoom lens outside of Disney. If I go zoom route then this would be next lens.

Was originally going with the Nikon 55-200mm but now saw the Tamron and Signma online. Both Tamron and Sigma were a little cheaper and offered more zoom. However the Nikon had the image stablization which the others do not (Sigma has an OS version but was more than I was looking to spend).

What are peoples thoughts? Is the VR a must since won't always be using a tripod or do the others fair decently? Would love the extra zoom but if I am forced to use a tripod everytime, makes it unpractical.

Thanks.

 

[schewy]

While I do not use a zoom lens, I do use the Nikon D60 on a daily basis with my job, fire investigation. I always have the VR setting in the "on" position whether on a tri-pod or not. This greatly reduces the photo becoming blurry becuase of my actions. I would absolutely recommend the VR. I have a use for macro lenses more often so I can't comment about the zoom lenses. The only lenses I use are Nikon brand lenses and I have never experimented with other brands.

 

[annnewjerz]

Relatively new to DLSR and have Nikon D60, currently with just the kit lens.

Was looking to add a new lens before my next Disney trip. Choices are below:

-Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD
-Sigma Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
-nikon Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR
-nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

Was leaning towards one of the zoom lens as opposed to the Nikon 35mm. For as much the prime would be great for Disney, thinking I would get more use out from a zoom lens outside of Disney. If I go zoom route then this would be next lens.

Was originally going with the Nikon 55-200mm but now saw the Tamron and Signma online. Both Tamron and Sigma were a little cheaper and offered more zoom. However the Nikon had the image stablization which the others do not (Sigma has an OS version but was more than I was looking to spend).

What are peoples thoughts? Is the VR a must since won't always be using a tripod or do the others fair decently? Would love the extra zoom but if I am forced to use a tripod everytime, makes it unpractical.

Thanks.

It's a toss up between the 35mm and the 55-200.

I'd probably go with the 35mm f/1.8 just because I prefer the look of photos with a shallow DOF and would also like to be able to get some usable shots on the dark rides like PotC, Splash, Small World, etc.

It really depends on your shooting style though. Outside of WDW, what do use your camera for most? If it is shooting kids, pets, etc. indoors then the 35mm would be better. If it's shooting soccer/baseball games then the 55-200 would probably get more use.Having not been to The World yet with my dSLR, most people seem to say that you aren't likely to need much reach at any of the parks except DAK, so the prime would come in handy.

As far as the other lenses, I would personally steer clear of something that long that doesn't have VR unless it was a fast lens (like a f/2.8). If you are shooting with lens that long primarily outdoors in the bright sunlight, you'll probably be able to get a fast enough shutter speed that blur won't be an issue. However, once it starts to get dim you'll probably find yourself needing a tripod more often than not.

I always have the VR setting in the "on" position whether on a tri-pod or not. This greatly reduces the photo becoming blurry becuase of my actions.

Something to note, most literature on VR recommends that you turn it off when you are using a tripod. The movement of the mechanism that provides the VR can actually make the camera vibrate while mounted. I'm sure it's not a hugely noticable difference and apparently the new VRII fixes this problem, but just something to consider in the future.

 

[kenny]

It really depends on your shooting style though. Outside of WDW, what do use your camera for most? If it is shooting kids, pets, etc. indoors then the 35mm would be better. If it's shooting soccer/baseball games then the 55-200 would probably get more use.Having not been to The World yet with my dSLR, most people seem to say that you aren't likely to need much reach at any of the parks except DAK, so the prime would come in handy.

Thanks for the advice.

At home it depends. There are times when I have been outside (trip to the Bronx Zoo) and wished I had more zoom and times when I have taken pictures of the kids inside and wished I had the prime. Ultimately I need both.

As for Disney, I have take my D60 2x now and you are correct. For most of my pic's the 18-55mm was ok. Were times I wished I had more but for the most part it worked out well. Many times I wished I had a better lens for low light, like Pirates. Still can't get a good shot in there.

I guess that is what makes it so difficult to decide. In Disney, probably would use the 35mm more. At home it's a toss up.

Something to note, most literature on VR recommends that you turn it off when you are using a tripod

I usually do. Unless I forget.

 

[Icemann]

I have a D40 and just bought some new glass myself.I have the Nikon 35mm and I bought the Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC lens.Check it out on there website.I love this lens,it's quiet,fast focus and is a good walk around lens for me.Between the 18-270 and the 35 I think I'm done buying glass for now. Hope this helps.That last part was for my wife in case she reads this