Advice on lens

[red_4900]

I'm planning to get a D90 by the end of this month. Now I'm a bit lost on what lens to get for the D90.

Although I would do my photographing mostly for landscape, static object, there are also time when I feel like I need telephoto lens. I have around 400~500USD to spend on lens alone, although I have extra money to burn should I find it really worth the money. As of right now, these 2 lens attracts me the most :
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review
Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.8G DX Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

As you can see, I'm looking for a prime and a zoom lens.

The reason why I want a prime is because from what I read, its pictures is of greater quality than zoom lens (although I have yet to see picture proof on this). Because I would use the camera mostly on landscape photography, so I think I should get the best lens for what I do the most. If you think this isn't really what I need, your advice is mostly welcomed.

Now for the zoom lens. I think it's a bit of a waste that the lens cover from 18-200mm focal length, since the prime lens I'm looking for already covers the 50mm range. I'm looking for 70-200mm lens but to no avail. Any lens recommendation, anyone?

 

[Dao]

For landscape type shots, although it can be taken with any focal length , but most of the time I prefer a lens with a focal length wider than 35mm (especially on a cropped body).

As for the superzoom type lens like the 18-200mm lens, it is good since it covers a very wide range of focal lengths and it is also good if you want to travel with one or two lens only. And some people called those superzoom lenses as vacation lens. However, the draw back on those type of lenses is image quality. They are not bad, but not as good as some of those that cover a shorter range focal length.

So if you compare a good quality standard zoom lens that cover around 17mm - 55mm with the superzoom lens, you will find that the image quality of the standard zoom lens is better. For the same token, the good telephoto zoom normally is optically better than the superzoom lens.

If you are really not sure what lens to get now, the kit lens that shipped with the camera is not a bad choice. Learn to use the camera and the lens, and once you know more, you should know what lens to get next.

 

[bigtwinky]

primes do generally give a much nicer image quality FOR THE PRICE. There are zoom lenses out there that give awesome images. I'd be hard pressed to spot the difference between a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. The thing is the 24-70 will be over $1000 while the 50 will be under $500

Primes are great lenses though, I'm wanting to get more.

Just as the primes give a great image quality, the more range a lens has, the lesser the quality. Might be enough for what you need though, but usually not for a working pro.

If you are enjoying landscapes, then why not look for a wider lens? The D90 is a crop camera, so that 35mm prime will be more like a 50mm, which is long for a landscape lens. You should be aiming at 28mm or less on full frame (18-20mm on a crop).

I know a few Nikon shooters who love the Sigma 10-20mm lens for landscape work. I have a Canon 10-22 and am very happy with the focal range.

The Sigma with a 50mm 1.8 might fall into your budget. The only thing you are missing is a telephoto lens, which you can save for.

If you need a telephoto lens, then save up for a good telephoto lens.

 

[red_4900]

Thanks for the suggestion. But the Sigma 10-20mm lens seems very good but I think I'll skip it for now. The price is too expensive.

I read Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens to be quite good. Any opinion on this lens? Do you think it's wide enough for landscape photography?

 

[wescobts]

I'm a prime guy, so I suggest the Nikkor 35mm 2.0 or the 20mm 2.8. I have both and they both compete for time on the camera, I especially like the 20mm, very nice feel :thumbup:

 

[icassell]

I read Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens to be quite good. Any opinion on this lens? Do you think it's wide enough for landscape photography?

I have the older Tamron 17-50 without the image stabilization. I bought it new about 3 years ago and used it on my 30D and now on my 7D. I absolutely love the lens and it lives on my camera greater than 75% of the time. It is useful for some landscape work as well as portraiture and does well in relatively low light. It is built very well and is very sharp. Frankly, I don't think image stabilization is very important at this focal length and I have never missed it. I've seen used ones going for as low as ~$300. I highly recommend it. The one down-side is that it doesn't have an ultrasonic motor, but that's never been a problem for me.