Not just Nikon

Moderated by: chrisbet,

Nikon D330018-55 lens choice

Author	Post

Posted by dillonthebest: Sat Jul 16th, 2016 12:29

1^st Post

I am new to photography and I would like to buy a camera which my friend recommended. The thing is that the Nikon d3300 18-55 VR l is 400 euros and there is the Nikon d3300 18-55 VR ll which costs 500 euros.

Would the VR ll make alot of difference when using the camera? I know what VR is.

Posted by Gilbert Sandberg: Sat Jul 16th, 2016 12:52

2^nd Post

Dillon,
Sorry about the pun...
Forget the 18-55 by Nikon, try for the 18-105 instead.
The longer lens is more versatile and has many satisfied first-time users.
(and I do not know anyone who is satisfied with any 18-55 on the long run.)
Regards, Gilbert

Posted by dillonthebest: Sat Jul 16th, 2016 13:02

3^rd Post

Gilbert,
Thanks for the reply. Since the nikon d3300 will be soon out of stock because of the new nikon d3400, prices have dropped. All sellers are selling it with that type of lense and therefore I would like to know if there will be much difference between the VR 1 and VR 2. Also I would like to buy it locally.

Posted by Robert: Sat Jul 16th, 2016 13:55

4^th Post

Hi Dillon, and welcome to the forum. I have the D3100 and am evaluating a D3300, I have the 18-105 Gilbert mentions and would concur with his advice. Its a very good lens, head and shoulders above the 18-55.

However your question is about the 18-55, I don't own that lens and am unlikely to, but all I can say is the VR feature isn't one I would seek. For lenses under 200mm it's pretty much pointless even for a doddery old codger like myself.

I regard the D3xxx cameras as my lightweight 'snapshot' cameras and use them for hiking and family photography. For serious photography I don't own any VR lens, nor would I ever bother seeking out a lens for it's VR capability.

I suppose if you feel VR is important then, perhaps the later version may have some virtues. However, as I have said, for short focal lengths VR is not an important consideration, even for a 105mm in my opinion. I have many images taken at 105mm f2.5, which are perfectly sharp with no AF or VR.

You don't mention your general location in your profile so am unable to help with that specific.

____________________
Robert.

Posted by Eric: Sat Jul 16th, 2016 17:41

5^th Post

Welcome to the forum.

Get the VR I version and save the 100euros.

The reasoning is that there isn't enough of a difference between those lenses to pay extra. And as others have suggested, you will end up wanting another lens... this way you have 100euros towards it!

I agree with the assessment that the 18-105 is a much better lens. But apart from that, the extra reach beyond 55mm is much more versatile. For example you can take much better portraits at 100mm than 55mm.

So even if you don't swop the 18-55 for an 18-105 at some stage you will want extra mm reach in some lens or another.

____________________
Eric

Posted by jk: Sun Jul 17th, 2016 09:43

6^th Post

Welcome to the forum.

I agree with Gilbert go for the 18-105 VR. It is a much more useful lens to have.

VR is nice to have as with modern cameras you can use ISO 3200 in most cameras.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by jk: Sun Jul 17th, 2016 09:47

7^th Post

Robert if you are looking at a 3100 replacement then the D5300 is priced very competitively at £375. It has loads of extra features over the D3300.
GPS built in, etc,

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by Robert: Sun Jul 17th, 2016 10:00

8^th Post

TBH JK, I rarely turn the 3100 off full auto, it's just a point and shoot for me, the 3300 has a few more pixels which I don't need, the main thing I was looking for was audio on the video.

I was amazed by the special effects which can be just dialled in, which I found by accident. Michael has it at present, at Brands, hopefully he may get some good pix over the weekend. If he remembers...

____________________
Robert.

Posted by Gilbert Sandberg: Sun Jul 17th, 2016 10:51

9^th Post

Dillon,
re: with that type of lense ...
Dealers may want to sell whatever kit-combo is left, but some are willing to change the standard kit lens for something better / more desirable, like the 18-105.
Please note: the 18-105 is not the perfect lens for everyone on the planet, but for the money it will give more and longer lasting satisfaction than any 18-55.
re versions 1/2 VR.
Be reminded that any VR may be useful feature (some of the time) but is by no way a guarentee for perfect pictures, regardless of the version.
Any prose (witten to indicate any differences) is most likely marketing chit-chat.
Regards, Gilbert

Posted by jk: Mon Jul 18th, 2016 08:19

10^th Post

I find VR to be of little use as you should only use it when camera is off tripod and the shutter speed is less than 1/250 otherwise there is peotential to degrade the image.

The difference netween VR1 and VR2 is not large enough to warrant changing lens versions!

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

1st new

This is topic ID = 1347
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > Nikon D3300	Top
Users viewing this topic

Current theme is Blue

A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you.