Best bang for the buck, d90 lens?

[mrbeachbum2]

I've been considering the Tameron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 lens. It's for sale at 530$. I'm a student to this is probably top of my budget I decided. I enjoy landscape, but as I learn my camera more - I'd like to start shooting a few senior photos.

I'll also be a 2nd photographer (learning) at a few of my friends weddings upcoming. I also have the nikkor 50 mm f1.8 lens.


Thanks.

 

[KmH]

For weddings the 2 lenses Nikon pro's use are the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G and the AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8G.

But, they aren't inexpensive.

Even the good 3rd party wedding lenses aren't inexpensive.

 

[bigtwinky]

I would first be tempted to recommend the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. This lens is versatile, and if you get a good copy, can be nice and sharp. And its a constant 2.8 aperture, which is key for lower light shooting. I picked one up instead of the Canon 24-70.

But you said you like landscapes. So I could suggest the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Its a better lens for landscapes and cityscapes as it goes to 17. But its a bit short for general wedding usage as a second shooter.

So its a toss up between the two.

The Tamron 18-270 is an ok lens, but generally speaking, the longer focal range in the lens, the lesser image quality you are getting. You essentially sacrifice image quality for usage. I'd skip the lens if I were you, pick up one with a constant 2.8. Investing in good glass is key in photography. And while Tamron (and Sigma) lenses have their issues like slow autofocus, they are a great entry point into the 2.8 constant aperture lenses, which is what pros look for in their zooms.

Even the good 3rd party wedding lenses aren't inexpensive

But some would still fit into the OPs budget.
Both the 28-75 f/2.8 and the 17-50 f/2.8 are $460 at BH

 

[tirediron]

Look for used gear.

 

[mwcfarms]

I have a seriously noob question to ask. How can you tell if 2.8 is a constant aperature on a lens. I have read on here different posts that some are only 2.8 wide open while others are consistent all the way through. Sorry dont mean to hijack the thread but I too am looking at getting another good piece of glass for low light and this seemed to tie in.

 

[mfer]

If the lens is called 20-70mm f/2.8 that means it is 2.8 all the way though, else it would be like 20-70mm f/3.5-5.6 or something like that. I just made up all those numbers btw.

 

[mwcfarms]

Ah I see that makes sense now. So if it is 2. 8 to 4.0 or whatever it isn't constant if it has one # it is. Gotcha. Thanks for the speedy reply.

 

[mfer]

Ah I see that makes sense now. So if it is 2. 8 to 4.0 or whatever it isn't constant if it has one # it is. Gotcha. Thanks for the speedy reply.

Also, the price. If you see some 20-70mm f/2.8 and it is only like $300, I'd be worried they aren't telling you the entire truth. Keeping that fixed f/2.8 throughout the zoom range is a much more costly thing to do.

 

[AlexL]

i think if you are getting a wide to telephoto zoom for the range and convenience, you might want to take a look at the 18-200mm Nikon. It is a little more expensive, but from reviews and a buddy of mine that has one, it has better image quality. That is, if you don't need the extra 70mm (another review said it is not exactly 70mm more, but the mm is measured differently. Go look it up as I have no idea how the measurement works). A used one should be less then $530.

 

[djacobox372]

The sigma 24-70 f2.8 can be purchased used for around $350.. it's a great all-around lens for the $$.

If you can live without the wide end, a nikon 80-200mm ed af f2.8 can be found used for $500.

Pair the two aforementioned lenses together and you have a nice pro-quality kit for relatively little $.