Zoom Lens for Nikon d3500 dslr advice please...

trojan10_om

Ok bad choice of the word ‘greater’ but if you want a zoom lens where the aperture can go to 2.8 you will be paying more money, and probably won’t be a priority in OP’s scenario.

trojan10_om

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

The Nikon D3500 uses the Nikon F mount and therefore uses the exact same lenses as the top of the line Nikon cameras. She won't have to replace the lenses at all (except for quality reasons).

Edit: with the caveat that the lenses are full frame lenses of course.

While you are correct, that’s not realistically what you going to end up doing should you get to the stage where you’ve spend £1,500+ on a full frame camera.

Point still stands, that buying used is a good idea as it means if you upgrade in the future you will take less of a hit

daveyjp

I always buy used dSLR kit.

I don't need brand new bodies. After 3-4 years they have lost 60-80% of initial price, they are good for 15+ years. My current one is now about 15 years old and the rubber grips are just starting to fail. I could get the same model body in better condition for £49! Original price was almost £2,000.

Lenses don't wear out and if I buy used and it gets damaged replacing it isn't such a hit on the wallet. The cheaper plastic f mount bayonet fittings do split and fall off, replacements are cheap, but they are also plastic. The more expensive Nikon lenses have a metal bayonet ring hence the extra cost due to better engineering.

PhylPho

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

And top of the list is the tripe you wrote. I suspect you have a massive chip on your anorak about Nikon because it's out of your price range even the basic stuff.

The FZ1000 you allude to is a brick with crappy battery life, a pokey small viewfinder, nasty variable aperture with a min of.....f8 !!!!!!! It's also much more expensive than the Nikon.

I learnt most of my basic photography on a s/h F3hp md4. The Nikon will be fine it also benefits from the F mount so 100's of top quality s/h lens.

If you're already on tantrums management medication, it might be wise to check with your doctor that the dosage is appropriate to the severity of your condition -- assuming, of course,
that you're able to conduct an intelligent conversation with your GP, contrary to the evidence you've posted here.

Incidentally, out of courtesy to the OP, if to no-one else, you might have liked to ensure that what you were going to post was factually accurate, rather than misleading.(Clue: Panasonic FZ100 DC-Vario Elmarit lens, 1:2.8-4.0 / 9.1-146 Asph).

Sorry if it's embarrassing for you to be in the company of a peasant such as myself who can't afford a Nikon and has a chip in the anorak as a result. Just to put you right on that score: I have 2 x Nikons. But no anorak.:(

PhylPho

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I strongly disagree, I own several 1in sensor cameras (RX100mk1, RX100MkIV, RX10mk2 and a Mavic Pro 2) and while they offer a great balance between size and image quality they're a poor choice for learning photography. The smaller sensor with a fixed zoom lens means you have almost no DoF control, the larger APS-C sensor has two stops less DoF at any aperture and as it's not fixed you can put a cheap 35mm F1.8 on there to give a low light or shallow depth of field option.

The APS-C sensor also has a lot more latitude for editing in post processing particularly for dynamic range and much cleaner at high iso as well.

The FZ1000 is a great all in one camera for convenience but it's a terrible camera to learn photography on particularly when the OP has already bought the DSLR.

Hopefully, the OP will take note of this well-reasoned post and appreciate it as much as I do. As to the best camera via which to learn photography, it's a pity tmy own era of 35mm film and hand-held Weston Supermaster exposure meters has passed, because now it's a case of pushing digital technology to its limits in an attempt to manage that which old fashioned emulsion did so well back in the day.

Your point about sensor size and optics ability is one with which I agree. But I'm still left, after all the years and all the cameras I've had, with abiding memories of some of the best photographs I never took -- because the dSLR equipment I had was too big, too bulky, too cumbersome for everyday hobbyist usage at the time those images should have been taken.

There's nothing at all wrong with the Nikon dSLR purchased by the OP; I've owned one as well as the d5200. And prior to that, Canon dSLRs of (in retrospect) back-breaking weight and bulk.

However, unless the OP's daughter is looking to become a pro photographer working freelance or on the staff of a newspaper or magazine, it does seem to me that a needlessly expensive road is being contemplated here, and in particular the consequential need for expenditure on ancillary lenses.

For the hobbyist, photography is about capturing a moment in time of special resonance to the individual concerned. For the pro, photography is about image making as both a form of eloquent record as well as a kind of art. For many nowadays, it's about whipping a cellphone out of one's pocket to grab at that special moment which will have gone forever by the time the dSLR is in position with the right lens in place for the job.

Bridge cameras, be they from Sony, Panasonic, Canon or Nikon are not ideal "training grounds" for aspirant photographers. But they are convenient, and in comparison to multi-lens dSLR kits, cheaper, and -- crucially -- they do encourage a novice towards a different level of photography by demonstrating how time and circumstance in all its shifting beauty can be captured forever with the clicking of a shutter.

NB: Post-processing: agreed. Though it's difficult to equate a camera with anything else, photography is not dissimilar to painting. Getting that first image down in digital memory is akin to the initial stages of composing a portrait, landscape or whatever. After those initial stages, the fine-tuning begins. (With the obvious caveat that post-processing has to have meaningful data to process in the first place, hence the importance of a camera's sensor size.)

PhylPho

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

Please take the time to have a look around my Daughter's website www.daisypalmertrust.co.uk
(MSE Andrea says ok!)
IM

OP: that's one heck of a special young lady you have there. Thank you for sharing some of her story here, a reminder of how much so many of us have in this life but human nature being what it is, take for granted without actually meaning to.

Very best wishes to Daisy and Mum and Dad.

Heedtheadvice

Well a lot of info posted.......and just a bit of it conflicting!!


To do photography one does not need an expensive or DSLR camera. Some of the best images have been taken on cheapish compact and (previously) fixed lens wet film cameras....by photographers who know what they are doing. The most important aspects (in general) are the subject, the story, the composition, light and associated exposure. There are types of images that require the more specialist camera bodies/lenses and higher quality image capture such as for producing large prints or other specific subjects. Many photographers now prefer mirrorless system cameras to DSLR or as Phyl mentions, bridge cameras. ALL cameras have their limitations or drawbacks even the most expensive pro cams!


Having said that the camera is for a course and needs to have facilities and functions appropriate to the syllabus, rather than ad hoc learning.



I would go for a suitable lens, Tamron or Sigma on quality vs cost grounds, second hand from a respected dealer. Will probably be a bit more expensive than ebay etc. but less risk and great for the budget. If the correct equipment is not purchased then parts of the course may be missed for lack of capability and the courses do tend to lean towards DSLR and it's specific attributes.

PhylPho

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

We have recently bought her a Nikon D3500 dslr camera as advised by the photography course she has started.

it came with a standard type lens, which is fine, but she now needs a zoom lens for the next part of the course she’s taking.

We've been advised to get a 70-300mm zoom lens, but it’s hard (for us anyway) to understand what is compatible with her camera and why the prices seem to vary from anywhere between £80 and £500!

some seem to be different brand, but compatible with Nikon. Some seem to be actual Nikon brand, not really sure how this all works to be completely honest!


Thank-you in advance
IM[/QUOTE

Heigh-ho. To return to answer the OP's specific query: like many, I became increasingly conscious of the hassle, weight, burden and inconvenience of the conventional dSLR kit as years went by.


When it came to down-sizing, I elected to purchase a gorgeous bronze edition Nikon 5200. Then, like the OP, it came time to think about another lens.

My thoughts were primarily about optics and performance, but almost equally about size and price. I didn't want anything extreme of price or of zoom capability -- but I did want something that, size-wise, would complement the 5200's body and not result in an overly enlarged camera.

The solution was the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm VR2 lens -- not exactly the finest glass in the world, and easily criticised by those hung up on tech spec but with wallets big enough to afford their superior judgment.

It turned out to be an extremely competent lens and, thankfully, extremely compact for a zoom. In post processing cropping, the zoom range was extended anyway.

The retail price was, literally, all over the place, with one Nikon dealer I contacted seeking over £280, whilst on eBay a seller claiming to be located in the Uk but more than likely in China or Hong Kong wanted £140.

Eventually, because funds were (always are) tight, I bought from Amazon -- a "fulfilled by Amazon" purchase that cost £107, came with Amazon's 30-day returns policy, and proved to be worth every penny.

It's that particular Nikkor 200mm zoom lens which will complement Daisy's d3500 and play nicely with it (fingers crossed, it's still in production: I don't know for sure.)

As an aside, I've always been of the view that digital photography is as much about image management as image taking, because post-processing is the key to deriving the maximum pleasure from the hobby (and achieving the best results.)

The thought occurs that as remarkable a human being as the OP's daughter so evidently is, she could thrive on digital photography if embracing it in all its aspects -- not merely through picture-taking alone. (It's reckoned that the number of photographs taken in the past 12 months already exceeds the total number of pictures taken since the invention of photography. Question: so where've they all gone, those pictures? Presumably, stuck in the Cloud or lost from sight on a gazillion hard drives. That luvvly old fashioned habit of sticking photographs into albums is, sadly, no more.)

And yet, and yet: I've found amongst my own family members the sheer fun, and sense of achievement, that arises from taking pictures. . . and actually doing something with them: post processing, and ultimately bringing them together in a photobook.

That sense of achievement isn't to be under-estimated, nor the joy of having a "printed" (actually, a photobook isn't printed) publication of one's images to hand to someone else to hold and leaf through. (Or to share the photobook online, a facility offered by all the publishers, even though turning virtual pages on-screen is nothing like as enjoyable as turning real pages in your hands.)

The foregoing is one of the reasons why I'm so wary about the costs of photography as a hobby, because disproportionate spending on the front end (cameras, lenses etc) means there's less left afterwards for competent image processing software and photobook production.