I just got a Nikon D3500 for a zoo trip next month but the lens it came with doesnt zoom much. I have like $200 and I am so confused by the numbers. My logic was a bigger number means more zoom right? Like is 300 better? I just need something cheap to see stuff far away...
I've spent years shooting wildlife and honestly the Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR was my first real love. Its cheap used and you wont regret the extra reach.
> I just need something cheap to see stuff far away... Picked up a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II for $85. Super satisfied with the compact collapsible design and the ED glass specs really helped my zoo shots.
I definitely agree with that pick, that 70-300mm is a solid choice. However, you really need to be careful about which specific version you buy for your Nikon D3500. There are actually two versions of that lens floating around. One has VR, which stands for Vibration Reduction, and the other doesn't. At $200, you might see the non-VR version for cheaper, but I would suggest avoiding it at all costs for zoo trips. When you zoom in all the way to 300mm, any tiny shake from your hands makes the picture blurry. The Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR uses magnets to steady the glass inside, which is basically essential if you aren't using a tripod. Its a night and day difference for wildlife stuff. Also, double check that it is an AF-P lens. Your camera body is newer, so it works perfectly with the Pulse motor in the Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR. It focuses way faster and quieter than the older AF-S models. If you find the 300mm is too pricey, the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II is a decent backup. It doesnt have as much reach, but its super light and usually stays well under budget on the used market. Just make sure the lens has those VR letters tho, seriously.
Bump - same question here
