Which lens for nikon d5100?

Pinksummer27

I'm new to dslr but I'd like one that I could learn on and then perhaps get a better body later on. I'm trying to decide between the 16-85mm nikon, 18-105 or 18-200. I keep reading good things and bad things about all 3. 18-105 apparently has a plastic attachment that can break easily or I'd have gotten than one already. I was all set on the 18-200 and then ill read a bad review and get apprehensive. I've just stumbled on the 16-85. I want something that auto focuses quickly. I want it firstly to take pictures of my son who never is still long and to do landscape and macro work. I'd loved to eventually move into photographing people semi professionally. Any thoughts, help is wholeheartedly appreciated. Also, I'm wondering what's better to buy: a used body or a used lens? Thanks.

Harryb

Of the 3 lenses the 16-85 is the best, the 18-105 the best bargain, and the 18-200 the most versatile. All 3 lenses have compromises attached to them quality wise. However they will serve your intended purposes. I would go with the cheapest until you need and can afford better glass. I would also take a look at the offerings from Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. For example, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is cheaper than two of the lenses you expressed an interest in and is a much better performer.

A good review site for lenses is http://www.photozone.de/

MomaZunk

If you can afford it, I would go with the 18-200mm and cover the whole range. I have used mine for 5 years, and have added fast glass along the way to gradually replace it. Until my recent addition of D600/24-70mm 2.8, the 18-200mm was the go to lens for trips trips, school events, and basic walk around lens. Here is my evolution in lens:

18-200mm

50mm 1.4
(probably should have saved $ and gotten the 1.8, fun lens, I am enjoying more on my full frame, razor thin DOF)

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
(Awesome lens to handle the wide angles, and it works as a 16mm 2.8 on my D600 now)

70-200mm 2.8
( I got this for baseball - no flash and action at night under awful lighting, big heavy lens)

24-70mm 2.8
(I got this when I got my D600, as I needed the mid range zoom for full frame, and decided to take advantage of the discount, awesome lens but big and gets more looks than the D7000/18-200mm combination)
I can not fit this setup in my purse like I can the D7000/18-200mm option

So until you are ready to step up to the heavy expensive glass, just get the versatility of the 18-200mm.

SLRdude

I don't have the budget for expensive zooms so I went the prime lenses route.
If you don't mind zooming with your feet, primes often cost less and are always sharper than consumer zooms.
I currently have a 35mm 1.8, a 85mm 1.8 and a 105mm micro 2.8. All Nikkor lenses.

My camera is a D7000.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2.

jthomas

I have a D5100, a D7000, and just recently a D600, and I have all the lenses you mention. My favorite is the 16-85VR. For the past two years the 16-85 with the D7000 have been my constant travel companions. However, the image quality of the 18-105 is almost the same. It does have a plastic mount but it is very durable and has never presented a problem. I don't think that is something to worry about unless you are VERY rough on your gear.

The 18-200 is used primarily on the D5100, which is my wife's camera. It is not a bad lens, and is certainly versatile, but the IQ is not as good as the other two. It is also big and heavy, and ours has been in the shop at least three times for various failures. The most recent repair cost $360, but was an almost complete rebuild. But the lens is seven years old and has seen LOTS of use.

My advice to a beginner is to go with the 18-105 and learn with it. Then you can decide what you might want to move up to.