What Lens to buy next???

After a fiasco that happened during one of my domestic flights in the US wherein i lost my D7000(Nikon) with an 18-105 lens :( early in 2011, i had just about enough funds to buy a Nikon D3100 with an 18-55 and a 70-300 lens . Now that i have been using my kit(and am quite happy with it) i was thinking of adding a lens to my kitty.

I was wondering what kind of lens i should go for, nature and wildlife photography topping my photographic subjects. I'm largely confused whether i should go for a fixed focal length or zoom lens with a greater range. Any suggestions?

There are some good lenses in the Nikon lineup. The 200-400 f4 is one good lens. It costs a lot as well.

The Nikon 300mm f4 is a good lens and works well with a teleconverter.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Thanks Sabyasachi.

Indiawilds largely seems to be a canon shop, which is what I've noticed. I suppose that would be reason enough for more feedback of canon lens used. Based on other forums here I was wondering if the canon 100-400 has an analogy in the nikkor dept.Though I feel 200-400 f4 is a great suggestion by Sabyasachi, the cost is way beyond my current budget and subsequent budgets for a while atleast :(.

My budget is more around the $1000 range which the Nikon 300mm fits perfectly. Was also toying with the idea of a Sigma 120-400 which i guess is significantly cheaper than the nikkor 200-400. Suggestions please.Thanks.

I buy all my equipment with my own hard earned cash. In my official work, I work closely with Canon, however, that doesn't influence my suggestions.

Canon and Nikon are the two good brands and you can't go wrong with either of these. I normally suggest Canon lenses as they are cheaper than Nikon without any way being inferior in quality. Of course the new super teles of canon are pretty costly.

Earlier I used to have many sigma lenses till I saw the quality issues. Also, I decided that it is better to have one lens but a good one. If you have just one 300mm lens, and the subject is close by, you can get as good an image as anyone else, provided you are in the right place and you employ good technique.

Nikon doesn't have a 100-400 lens. The 200-400 is f4 and is expensive. There are people who prefer to have longer focal lengths and buy the Sigma 150-500. However, look at the images closely and you will realise that 100-400 is better, if you are using canon.

In your case, I would suggest that you buy the 300mm with a teleconverter. For small birds it will still be small. And for many situations, you would want a longer reach. However, use that lens and teleconverter combination within its limitations, and your images will shine.

Thanks Sabyasachi for your inputs. However please enlighten me, I already have a Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR. how different will the 300m f4 be as compared to the one I have.

Though I understand the 300 mm f4 is a telephoto lens i read somewhere that as far as the performance is concerned the 70-300 is close to 300mm. Pardon my ignorance if my question is a bit silly.

The 300mm f4 lens has a widest aperture of f4. That is the lens opening is more, so more light can come in. The 70-300 lens has f5.6 as the widest aperture at 300mm. So it is one stop narrow ie. it will get less light than the f4 aperture.

For eg. if in a low light situation, you are able to shoot at f5.6, ISO 800 and the shutter speed is 1/30. Than in the same situation, with the 300mm f4 lens, you can use f4 at ISO 800 and get a shutter speed of 1/60. Often that is the difference between a sharp shot and an unusable shot.

Also with the 300mm f4 lens you can use teleconverter. So a 1.4x TC can give you a 420mm lens at f5.6.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

Got it Sabyasachi. Thanks, that was really informative. I was checking, a nikkor 300mm with a teleconverter of 1.4x is amounting to $1750... :blink:

May have to go for the teleconverter the next time I guess. Anyways thanks for guiding me, will buy the 300mm as of now.