Need help deciding which lenses to buy - D90

[chyidean]

I'll be making the purchase of a new D90 within the next two weeks. I settled on that camera because the sensor is essentially the same as the D300, which means similar high-iso performance. I can live with the 11point AF instead of the 51 on the D300, and the slower shutter speed. I also prefer the ergonomics of the camera as opposed to the 40d and 50d from Canon.

Now my problem is finding lens to go with the new purchase. I'm about 70% sure I'd be going for the Nikon 18-200mm as a walkaround lens, unless someone here dissuades me from doing so. I'm also considering getting a ultra-wide angle with that for landscape shots - most likely the Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X. I'm mainly wondering what you guys think of this combo, or if you have any suggestions if you were in a similar situation.

Thanks!

Edit: What I meant to say was that would the 11-16mm be necessary for the $600 I'd have to spend, and would that 2mm between 16 and 18 truly make a difference? It would be great if someone could dig up a comparison picture between pictures taken by a 11mm, 16mm, 18mm, 35mm, 55mm, etc etc. That would be fantastic!

 

[Captain IK]

I have the D90. As for lenses I use the kit lens 18-105...it's not bad for a kit lens and I consider it very useful.
I also have a 50 f1.8...excellent lens
As for telephoto I use the 70-300 and love it.

I have not heard good things about the 18-200, but did consider buying it at one point. Settled on the combination I have now because it covers a wide focal range.

 

[chyidean]

I have the D90. As for lenses I use the kit lens 18-105...it's not bad for a kit lens and I consider it very useful.
I also have a 50 f1.8...excellent lens
As for telephoto I use the 70-300 and love it.

I have not heard good things about the 18-200, but did consider buying it at one point. Settled on the combination I have now because it covers a wide focal range.

I haven't had real life experience with either but based on Ken Rockwell's reviews the 18-200mm is sharper than the kit lens (which he doesn't like). However, I HAVE heard in some sites (forgot where) that the 18-200mm wasn't as good as he made them out to be. The thing is, I just don't really have a desire to be constantly changing lens, so I thought I could just stick with one that has a large range and eat the distortion. Do you have any thoughts about an all-around lens?

Also, another quick question: does VR on wide angle lens matter?

 

[Captain IK]

I don't think VR is AS important on a short lens, but I'm sure it doesn't hurt.

It sure comes in handy at 300mm though!
As far as having one lens do all... I guess that depends on your expectations and what you typically shoot.

 

[tirediron]

Lenses like the 18-200 are the Swiss-Army knife of the photographic world; they do a lot, but none of it especially well. The main issue with that particular lens is a wide range in build quality. Unlike almost all other Nikon lenses which are very consistant in their build quality, there are reports of this one being everything from tack sharp to mediocre at best. My own experience shows it to be acceptable but not spectacular.

I just don't really have a desire to be constantly changing lens, so I thought I could just stick with one that has a large range...

If this is the case, why not go for one of the higher-end super-zooms and save a bunch of money. After all, the ability to change lenses is the main reason to own an interchangable-lens camera.

With respect to your last question, VR is not really necessary at very short focal lengths.

 

[chyidean]

Lenses like the 18-200 are the Swiss-Army knife of the photographic world; they do a lot, but none of it especially well. The main issue with that particular lens is a wide range in build quality. Unlike almost all other Nikon lenses which are very consistant in their build quality, there are reports of this one being everything from tack sharp to mediocre at best. My own experience shows it to be acceptable but not spectacular.

Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about multiple sharp zooms that cover the same range?

Thanks!

 

[NateS]

Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about multiple sharp zooms that cover the same range?

Thanks!

Yes, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Nikon 70-300 VR. You'll never notice the 20mm gap between 50 and 70 and both lenses are very sharp and excellent performers for their price range (or for any price range really).

 

[chyidean]

Any thoughts on these lenses:

Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor

 

[dEARlEADER]

Any thoughts on these lenses:

Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor

All these lenses are good. The little 55-20 is really sharp for the money.

Something for you to consider. Since you are spending cash on a serious amateur camera you may want to steer your lens collection toward full frame lenses. The full frame format keeps moving down the line. Your next body after the D90 might be full frame and you'll be stuck with a sack of dx lenses to sell.

IF you think this may be a possibility, grab a DX wide lens like the 11-16, but everything else in FX. Maybe get the Tokina 12-24, an 50mm prime, and the 70-300 to start if your on a budget.

or a 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 etc etc.

 

[NateS]

Any thoughts on these lenses:

Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor

All are good lenses for their price. The 55-200 is rarely long enough for decent wildlife shooting. 300mm is very helpful in my experiences (though still even a bit short often). The 18-55 is decently sharp, but I was never a fan of the contrast/colors from that lens (at least for portraits). If swapping between my 50mm f1.8 and the 18-55, I could pick out which was which based on color contrast alone. Also the 18-55 had absolutely horrible nasty bokeh when I had one.

The above all said, I think you'll get better quality out of the 18-55/55-200 combo than the 18-200. It sounds like my suggestion of the Tammy and 70-300 VR are a bit out of your budget..

 

[chyidean]

Oops I meant the VR version for the 18-55.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR[/FONT]

I think I might get the FX lenses later because
a) The Nikon lenses are moderately cheap so it wouldn't be a big deal
b) The new DX lenses have VR and my hands aren't exactly the most steady. I have a Canon compact and the IS really helps a lot.

Are there benefits in FX other than being futureproof?

Edit: Yeah, Nates, I'm wasn't sure if I could justify spending that much money for a hobby... I'm a student, after all.

 

[NateS]

Oops I meant the VR version for the 18-55.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR[/FONT]

I think I might get the FX lenses later because
a) The Nikon lenses are moderately cheap so it wouldn't be a big deal
b) The new DX lenses have VR and my hands aren't exactly the most steady. I have a Canon compact and the IS really helps a lot.

Are there benefits in FX other than being futureproof?

To my knowledge, the VR version is optically the same as the non VR version so problems I mentioned having with that lens would be the same.

 

[chyidean]

To my knowledge, the VR version is optically the same as the non VR version so problems I mentioned having with that lens would be the same.

Hmm... If I'm needing something in that range can I get a [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D?

It's supposedly really sharp and narrow dof for bokeh.
[/FONT]

 

[chyidean]

Okay sorry for double posting, but what if I opt for only the 50mm prime, and the Tokinan wide angle?

Basically, my collection will consist of:
Tokina wide angle
50 prime
55-200

Will I miss the range between the 50 prime and the wide angle?

Edit: Can any of the above serve as a macro lens? I think I'm already pushing my budget - the lens above total slightly over 1K.

 

[chyidean]

I've been told by a couple of my friends who are into photgraphy that I'm overanalyzing things... I may just end up grabbing the 18-200mm and possibly the 50mm f/1.8. I'll shoot with that combo, and see which end of the spectrum I mostly shoot in, sell the 18-200, and then get a HQ lens in the focal length I like. Thoughts?