Need help deciding which lenses to buy - D90

Discussion in 'Digital Discussion & Q&A' started by chyidean, Jan 18, 2009.

  1. chyidean

    chyidean TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 11-16mm
    f/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!
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2009
  2. Captain IK

    Captain IK TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Windsor, ON. Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  3. chyidean

    chyidean TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  4. Captain IK

    Captain IK TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Windsor, ON. Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  5. tirediron

    tirediron Watch the Birdy! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    37,328
    Likes Received:
    10,641
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.

    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.
     
  6. chyidean

    chyidean TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  7. NateS

    NateS TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,753
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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).
     
  8. chyidean

    chyidean TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  9. dEARlEADER

    dEARlEADER TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,312
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit

    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.
     
  10. NateS

    NateS TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,753
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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..
     
  11. chyidean

    chyidean TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. NateS

    NateS TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,753
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Missouri
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

lens should buy d90 55-200