Getting a D90 but TORN about lenses :( help!

ElianaRampage

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Boston, Mass!!
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hey everyone!! I was hoping I could perhaps get some guidance because I've been agonizing over this dilemma for what feels like an eternity.

I've been using a D40 for quite a while- I couldn't afford anything more expensive at the time, and I've been using it for a few years. Recently, I've decided to make the jump to a D90- I found a great deal and I'm super excited to pick it up when I get home from college.

However, I've been completely torn about which lens to get. I've been looking at all of them- 18-55, 18-105, 18-200, 55-200, 70-200, 70-300...as an extremely spontaneous person who literally takes pictures of EVERYTHING, the 18-200 was very tempting- as the argument goes, you don't need to switch lenses. However, after researching the lens, I've heard that people don't think it's as sharp as other lenses, which leaves me really concerned- I'm a stickler for detail, and I'm not sure I'd be willing to deal with distortion or lack of sharpness. On the other hand, I love the idea of not having to switch lenses (I find it extremely troublesome!)...As a person who takes wildlife, landscape, urban, macro, abstract AND portrait shots, I'm pretty torn about this entire situation- not to mention I'm not exactly well-endowed financially...I turn to my fellow photographers for advice. Should I get the 18-200, or should I just suck it up and get multiple lenses?

Also, should I stick to Nikon lenses or should I experiment with Sigma, Tamron and the like?

p.s budget wise: I'm thinking I probably can spend up to 700 dollars on lenses, maybe 1000 if I push it.

Thank you so much for your help, you're guiding an extremely troubled individual...I need all the help I can get!!! :)
 
Last edited:
How much do you have to spend on this lens? That will greatly effect the answers. I see you shoot a bit of everything lol although I believe a really good wildlife lense will cost you above 1000 I believe. I think Sigma and Tamron do make some nice lenses. I am planning on this one as my next purchase as the Nikon equivalent is a lot more.

Sigma | 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens | 579-306

Curious what lens do you have on that D40 right now.
 
I am thinking about doing the same thing getting a D90 - from a different camera altogether. Right now I am leaning toward...

50mm f/1.4
- I have kids and shoot them a lot in low light.
- I would rather have the 35mm prime with a DX, but the f/1.4 is too price for now.


18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VRII
- The good at all master at none lens.
- I still have been sold on this over the 18-135 or 10-105 as a carry around though.

If I don't get the 18-200, I don't know if it makes sense to look at the narrower telezooms. I am up in the air still. I could use the advice from everyone too. Looking at 2 or 3 lenses.
 
Without giving a budget, any advice is a mute point.



I love the idea of not having to switch lenses (I find it extremely troublesome!)...
Why bother with a dSLR? That IS one of the greatest advantages.
 
Completely forgot about budget, sorry guys, was in a rush. :)

I'm thinking I probably can spend up to 700 dollars on lenses, maybe 1000 if I push it.

And why am I bothering with an SLR? Because I love them- and there is the OPTION of switching lenses- It's just not my thing right now.
 
It's strictly up to you to decide between convenience and quality.

I suggest looking at Flickr.com where you can search for photos tagged with a certain lens. If the photos you see from the 18-200mm are good enough, then go for it. (I just took a quick look at Flickr - to me the 18-200mm seems more than good enough for most purposes.)

Another suggestion is to have a P&S to do everyday, walking around shooting, and a D90 (with prime lenses, imo) for when you want to do the quality-oriented shooting.
 
Or you can go here. Just click on the different lens you want to see pictures from on the left. Not all are going to be on a D90 but it will give all the meta data.
Full-size sample photos from Nikon D90

I've been using this site, it's absolutely wonderful. :) I just wanted to ask people who might have personal experience, that's all!
 
If I was in your situation, i'd get the 35mm f/1.8 for the candid, low light portraits and shallow DOF, a 55-200VR, and a used 18-70 for everything else. Not only would that cover most of your needs, but it would be flexible, All those lenses are really sharp, and you'll still have about $100 left for something else.
 
If I was in your situation, i'd get the 35mm f/1.8 for the candid, low light portraits and shallow DOF, a 55-200VR, and a used 18-70 for everything else. Not only would that cover most of your needs, but it would be flexible, All those lenses are really sharp, and you'll still have about $100 left for something else.

Would you recommend the 35mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f/1.4? I know the crop factor makes the 35mm more of a "natural eye" lens, but the 1.4 seems tempting for low light.
 
I have the D90. I am starting out so i just picked up the 35 1.8, 70-300VR and the 18-105.
So far I really cant say anything bad about them. Once I get more into photography, I am sure I will be trading up for some better glass. I do love the 35 though. I did a bunch of research as well as asked the same questions about rather the 35/1.8 or the 50/1.8. And it was a grapshoot on which one was better between the 50's. I just could not shoot for the 50/1.4 since there was so many discussions about them. All in all, more than half of the people on the forums said to get the 35/1.8. couldn't be happier....for now!
 
The lenses you mention cover a very wide range, so I'm not exactly sure which end you're most interested. But it looks like you're not looking at anything lower than 18mm.

If it were me, I'd stay away from nikon's cheaper lenses. The 18-55 is a great lens for the cost, but if you've already outgrown your equipment once, you like this hobby enough that you'll probably do it again with that lens - and pretty quickly.

I'd go with a higher quality lens in that range such as the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which I've read good reviews of. Or if you're more into people shooting the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 could be more along your lines. Either of which would leave you with $500 to spend on a longer range lens if there is something decent in that price range (I'm more of a wide angle guy so I haven't read up on anything 70mm+)
 
Would you recommend the 35mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f/1.4? I know the crop factor makes the 35mm more of a "natural eye" lens, but the 1.4 seems tempting for low light.
f/1.8 to f/1.4 is only 2/3 of a stop.

The more significant difference between the 2 is the focal length.

For your use (kids) I'd recommend both.
 
My D90 came with a kit lens. I purchased the 50mm 1.8 after reading many recommendations for it. I fell in love with it instantly and it became all that I used. I also wanted an all purpose zoom. So, I opted for the 18-200mm. I mostly used my 50mm though. I found the 50mm to be a bit tight at times. Since I loved the 50mm so much, I decided to get the 35mm 1.8. I have been using that one mostly. I just love prime lenses.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top