Nikon Lenses Instant Rebates at Multiple Stores, $2097 Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII; $396.96 85mm f/1.8G and many others - B&H, Amazon, Adorama

Quote from dealminator : I just got the d5200 with the 18-55mm and 55-300mm. Was thinking of getting the 18-300mm. Is it worth it to do this? I'm looking for 2 lenses. So I don't mind getting rid of the other two. I'm a beginner but want something I can learn and grow with the next few years.

You can have 18-300mm in two lenses, or one - which sounds better to you? The 18-300mm may be a bit on the heavy side, but it's still lighter than lugging around two lenses with essentially the same technical specs. As long as you don't plan to move to FX format in the near future, the 18-300mm is a solid investment.
I'm biased though, as I snagged one myself.

Quote from dealminator : I just got the d5200 with the 18-55mm and 55-300mm. Was thinking of getting the 18-300mm. Is it worth it to do this? I'm looking for 2 lenses. So I don't mind getting rid of the other two. I'm a beginner but want something I can learn and grow with the next few years.

I don't really like the ultra zooms for people who want to learn and grow. They always have very significant compromises in their optics, and for people learning they teach lazy habits about perspective; beginners will just use the zoom as a crutch instead of learning about focal lengths and moving around.

Use the two kit lenses you have, and find out what focal lengths you like and shoot with the most. Then decide what kind of lenses will be an upgrade for you, like perhaps a prime lens, or a high quality f/2.8 zoom in a particular range. The 18-300mm will not be an upgrade from your existing lenses, so you will be spending money for convenience.

There is nothing wrong with spending money for convenience, but it's not an investment to "learn and grow with" - it's just an investment to carry a single lens. Go nuts if that's your goal, just make sure you know what you're spending money on.

Also keep in mind you'll never have the lightweight option of the body + the 18-55 if you get rid of the other two for the single big lens. You might not always want to carry around the 18-300.

Thank you guys very much for your advice! It was extremely helpful. I'm going to stick with the 2 lenses I have and learn a bit more especially if I'd just be spending money on convenience. A year from now I'll revisit. Thanks.

Checked out the info on the 50mm, because I'm looking at getting another lens. Just purchased the D7000 last week, as an upgrade to my D3100, lol..but then I laughed incredibly hard at the predicted shipping on the 50mm from Amazon, "1-2 months." Oh my god, that's hilarious...I think I'll just stick with my current ensemble of lenses, 18-105, 55-200, 35mm, and save up for my combo pack of the 24-70, and 70-200 lol..

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-...kon+lenses

does anyone know if this is one can be used for canon 6D?

Quote from Vh2101 : http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-...kon+lenses does anyone know if this is one can be used for canon 6D?

No, it's a Nikon mount. You need to look for lenses that specify they are for Canon - like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-...62261011_1

Quote from mattspalace : No, it's a Nikon mount. You need to look for lenses that specify they are for Canon.

\


thanks and damn lol

Quote from Vh2101 : http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-...kon+lenses does anyone know if this is one can be used for canon 6D?

I would absolutely love to know why you dropped $2100 on a mid-range, full-frame DSLR.

Just an FYI for who ever getting 18-300, one of my friends have it, man it is HUGE. Although the focal length covers everything you need for an all around lens, the weight totally defeats it. You don't want to carry a 2 lb (almost) lens all day in Disneyland

Quote from dimagwala : ... I'm wondering to get (18-200/ 18-300 ), or (55-200 or 55-300) lens. I've 18-55 lens came with camera.

Quote from dealminator : I just got the d5200 with the 18-55mm and 55-300mm. Was thinking of getting the 18-300mm. Is it worth it to do this? I'm looking for 2 lenses. So I don't mind getting rid of the other two. I'm a beginner but want something I can learn and grow with the next few years.

The only really good reason to get rid of those two lenses for an 18-200 or 18-300 is to have the convenience of having one lens and not having to change them when you're out and about. Thus they get you convenience and some people call them "vacation lenses" because of that. In general you will not get better image quality. In fact, you're more likely to get worse image quality especially if you like to pixel-peep your photos. "Superzooms" like the 18-200 and 18-300 have compromises. There is more distortion in the photos (lines aren't straight especially at the edges of the photo), and they are not as sharp.

The 18-200 and 18-300 also suffer from more "focus breathing" than non-superzooms. When you're closer to the subject, one doesn't really get "200mm" or "300mm." For example, when you're at "300mm" and at minimum focus distance, the actual field of view you get is like a 135mm lens. If the subject is far away, it's much closer to 300mm.

If you want to improve on the image quality of an 18-55, there's the expensive but very good 16-85VR. If you want to improve on the image quality of the 55-200, there's the 70-300VR (or the Tamron equivalent which is wel-regarded). Significantly more expensive improvement options are the Nikon 17-55/2.8 (or the cheaper third party f/2.8 lenses), and 70-200/2.8 lenses.

If you already have an 18-55 and 55-200, a good third lens is often the 35/1.8G. It'll give you a fast prime lenses with very good sharpness and overall very good image quality. Sure, it's not a Nikon 35/1.4G but it's only $200 even though it's not under these rebates.

Another good third lens option if one finds themselves wanting wider than the 18mm are any of the very good ultra wide angle (UWA) zooms out there. None of them are under instant rebate and frankly, the third-party, non-Nikon ones are usually better values unless one is hung up in getting the Nikon brand. Sigma makes a very good and very wide 10-20, and Tokina makes an excellent 12-24, and an expensive but fast and well-regarded 11-16/2.8.

Others may find they want to shoot bugs with macro, and there's the Nikon 105/2.8 VR Micro (not on instant rebate). But again there are highly competitive third-party options like the Tamron 90mm, and Sigma 150/2.8 OS Macro. However, such macro requires a good tripod and head and that's hundreds more and another conversation.

Photography can be a huge money pit, and better photos come more from better "photography brain" than gear. I've seen people armed with D800's and 24-70/2.8's and 70-200/2.8 VR II's who take terrible photos because they threw money thinking it'd make them better photographers. A lot of them would have been better off taking some photography classes with the money than buying high-end gear.

That is not to say that everyone with good gear doesn't take good photos ... a good photographer does get better photos with good gear, than a good photographer with bad gear. It's just that if one is a beginner, it's easy to get trapped into the "Nikon Acquisition Syndrome" (NAS) disease. And into endless discussions on sharpness, acuity, microcontrast, "pop," bokeh, rendering, etc.

Quote from BuffaloSpeedway : I like the 35mm so much it never really comes off. I have a macro lens that I absolutely love and take many bug shots and also the Tamron 18-270. I felt I would never take off the 18-270 when I first got it but it is soooooo soft compared to the 35 and indoors the 18-270 is slow to focus. Boy, I'm spoiled with the 35. Really looking at some of the 17-50mm lens that are 2.8 all the way through. It would help in situations when my back is against the wall and 35mm is a bit too close.

Agreed..my 35mm prime never comes off...it is simply amazing, and very cheap for the quality (only $200 for the 1.8G).

I was thinking of getting the 18-200 for outdoors and trips...what do you guys think? Will it ever get lower than $600? Or should I get the other prime 85mm?

My 50mm almost never comes off either. The 18-300mm DX lens I just purchased will replace my current 70-300mm FX lens. The DX lens is just a hair heavier, but a full inch shorter. I like having the full range of the 18-300mm lens because I miss that lower range frequently when I'm doing outdoor family portraits. Plus I have to deal with the extra zoom factor of the FX lens on my DX camera..

The 18-200mm and 18-300mm have both received very good reviews. If you think a lens is heavy, try carrying a 2 year old through the streets of Rome while lugging a 10lb camera bag full of lenses.

I don't see these lenses getting any cheaper given how fast stock is selling at Amazon.

was struggling between 24-120 and 24-70. I know, 24-70 is a must-have lens.... wish it had gone down a bit more.... anyways, went with 24-120, hopefully wont be disappointing