D90 and Lens Purchase Help Requested

[RDOwens]

Santa brought me the opportunity to finally make a DSLR purchase. I've been looking for a while, but it appears I am able to move forward now.

The photographs I tend to take are family candids such as the children playing in backyard, family vacations (Disney, for example), nature walks, pedestrian bridges over rivers, tree-lined paths, etc., and food.

I do seem to take a lot of indoor shots where the light is not great (classrooms, etc.).

One area I would like to learn is taking portraits.

I am looking at Nikon D90. My original thought was to purchase just the body and then either one or two good lenses to learn. This will be my first DSLR.

My research has led me to these lenses:
Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens

There's overlap there and not much for distance. I have seen mixed thoughts on the 18-200 Nikkor.

I guess I am trying to get a feel for what combination of lenses would be best to learn with. There's a budget, but it can be expanded.

Other things I think I need to begin are:

flash: I am thinking SB-600 AF Speedlight
battery: no clue. I know that for my PnS, I keep four batteries charged. What is recommended here?
tripod: no clue

Is there anything else I should consider? I appreciate any recommendations you may have.

 

[heyjoe]

I have a D90 and I love my (cheap) 50mm 1.8 and will soon get the 35mm 1.8. I don't care for the 18-55 kit lenses at all.

Your camera will come with a rechargeable battery, but you can always purchase a backup. Make sure you get a nice bag for your gear.

 

[eric-holmes]

My D90 came with an 18-105 and it has been quite the versatile lens. I would recommend the 50 if you like portraits or candid shots. If you're like me and find yourself always wanting more reach then grab a tele 2.8.

 

[Vinny]

The D90 is a nice camera but would rethink the 18-55 zoom as if you buy a 35mm and a 50mm as you rightfully said - too much in the same focal length, at least that's my opinion. The 70 to 300 was on sale recently and may still be on with the purchase of a Nikon body for $200 off (I think) which is how I got 2 lenses when I bought my camera ... couldn't pass up the deal. with the 35mm it'll be like having a 50mm lens on the crop sensor D90 (multiply the focal length by 1.5 on any lens you're looking into) and to "zoom" you just need to step forward and back.

Flash - D90 comes with an on board flash if money is tight, seems like a lot of people are getting sb-600s (I just got mine). Haven't used mine except to play with it for a couple of shots so I can't really say how good or bad it is.

Batteries - the D90 battery lasts a while (I think 700 shots) but if you buy a speed light you need AA batteries. Even using the on camera flash I haven't had the battery die prematurely on the D90.

Memory cards - The D90 takes SD memory cards. I use PNY class 4 and they work great. My advice is to buy smaller cards (4 Gb) and buy a few vs buying a 16 Gb card just in case something goes wrong with the (a) card. Class 4 is plenty fast for me and they are fairly inexpensive these days as I don't shoot high action photos but even then I believe I got about 8 shots out holding the shutter release down before the camera's memory buffer was full.

Tripod - I'm just a newbie here, have a 30 YO tripod but just placed an order for Vanguard tripod legs and a Benro B-3 ball head ... not sure if they're any good but I'm sure others will steer you correctly.

 

[djacobox372]

I would stay away from the super zooms (18-200mm), they're slow and the image quality isn't top-notch.

The 35mm f1.8 is a good choice for a "normal prime." You can't go wrong with that lens.

I wouldn't recommend spending the extra $$ on the 1.4 version of the 50mm af-d, the 1.8 is less the half the price and nearly identical in performance. I also wouldn't buy both a 35mm and a 50mm, they're too similar. A 24 and a 50 or a 35 and an 85 would make more sense.

As for a zoom, I'd try to find a constant aperture f2.8 zoom in your budget. Some suggestions would be the tamron 28-75 f2.8, or the sigma 18-50mm f2.8.

If you end up buying a fast f2.8 zoom then I'd probably opt for the 50mm prime over the 35mm to save $$.

Telephoto seems to be of the least importance to you, but you may want to have something in that category; a nikon 70-300mm af ed can be bought used for around $90 on ebay. Excellent quality for the $$.

 

[PatrickCheung]

Picking your first (non kit) lens is always the toughest thing.

My first lens was a Sigma 17-70/4-5.6 or... something like that. I traded that in for a Tamron 28-75/2.8 'cause I wanted the constant aperture. Both lenses focused slow and hunted like mad. Most Tamrons do that... focus slow and hunt (hunting means the lens can't find focus). I ended up selling the 28-75/2.8 to pay for a SB-900 (strobes are important to me). During that time, I picked up a Nikkor 85/1.8... and the quality I got with the nikon lenses was incomparable. I've considered picking up third party lenses, but in the end I've always stuck with Nikon. Third party lenses usually dont perform quite as well when it comes to focusing... someone told me that was because they're backwards engineered, but I wouldnt know. The only third party lens I've considered was the Sigma 50/1.4. From my experiences it's better optically and focuses faster than any Nikon 50mm I've used! But still, there are reported backfocusing problems which... keep me from buying one. So all in all, when looking for lenses, I usually only consider original manufacturer lenses.

Secondly, when picking a lens... I always pick something that's full-frame compatible, and preferably film compatible. Modern lenses without an aperture ring don't work on film cameras... and I love shooting film. I also find most film compatible lenses to be more reliable and robust. I also plan on switching to full frame one day, so DX or any digital-only/crop-frame-only lenses are usually out of my list (unless they offer a much lower price tag or better optical performance).

I say, spend as much as you can on your first lens... and hope that you'll never have to replace it. From the list of lenses you posted, I'd pick the 50/1.4D or the 50/1.8D. The 50/1.4D has a bit more purple fringing (from my experience). The 50/1.4D is the only full frame lens on that list.

 

[Jcampbelll]

I always pick something that's full-frame compatible, and preferably film compatible. Modern lenses without an aperture ring don't work on film cameras... and I love shooting film.

I wouldn't worry about if the lens is either Fx or Dx unless you are going to full frame in the near future. You can usually resell lenses close to what you payed for if you ever do go to FX.

I would recommend a 50mm 1.8 (or 50mm 1.4D if your budget allows for better build quality, better low light, better wide open). If your budget is low go for the 18-55. It's not the best in low light but it's a solid lens for the money and can be found at around $100.

It would be better if you let us know the specifics of your budget :thumbup:

 

[djacobox372]

Picking your first (non kit) lens is always the toughest thing.

My first lens was a Sigma 17-70/4-5.6 or... something like that. I traded that in for a Tamron 28-75/2.8 'cause I wanted the constant aperture. Both lenses focused slow and hunted like mad. Most Tamrons do that... focus slow and hunt (hunting means the lens can't find focus). I ended up selling the 28-75/2.8 to pay for a SB-900 (strobes are important to me). During that time, I picked up a Nikkor 85/1.8... and the quality I got with the nikon lenses was incomparable. I've considered picking up third party lenses, but in the end I've always stuck with Nikon. Third party lenses usually dont perform quite as well when it comes to focusing... someone told me that was because they're backwards engineered, but I wouldnt know. The only third party lens I've considered was the Sigma 50/1.4. From my experiences it's better optically and focuses faster than any Nikon 50mm I've used! But still, there are reported backfocusing problems which... keep me from buying one. So all in all, when looking for lenses, I usually only consider original manufacturer lenses.

Secondly, when picking a lens... I always pick something that's full-frame compatible, and preferably film compatible. Modern lenses without an aperture ring don't work on film cameras... and I love shooting film. I also find most film compatible lenses to be more reliable and robust. I also plan on switching to full frame one day, so DX or any digital-only/crop-frame-only lenses are usually out of my list (unless they offer a much lower price tag or better optical performance).

I say, spend as much as you can on your first lens... and hope that you'll never have to replace it. From the list of lenses you posted, I'd pick the 50/1.4D or the 50/1.8D. The 50/1.4D has a bit more purple fringing (from my experience). The 50/1.4D is the only full frame lens on that list.

While I agree on nikon being ideal, given the exact same budget, often a third party lens is the better choice in the real world of limited funds.

Is the nikon 24-70mm f2.8 afs lens a better performer then the tamron 28-75mm? No question, but it costs FOUR TIMES AS MUCH!!! $2000 new compared to $500 new (or 350 used).

Can you buy a better nikon zoom then the tarmon 28-75mm f2.8 for less then twice the cost? No way.

My advice is just to make sure you get pro-quality glass, do not by a consumer level nikon lens over a pro-quality third party.

 

[RDOwens]

I appreciate all the comments.

As for the budget, well my wife thinks it's $1000. It's not likely I can purchase a D90 body, two lenses, a flash, a tripod, and a bag for that. So it will grow. How much? I am not certain. I do know that I am not purchasing a $2000 lens at this point.

Being optimistic, if I can find a used body for $650 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor lens for $320, I am at a grand. I could go less on the lens by getting the f/1.8. A flash is going to be $225. That is all comfortable.

But I don't have a lens that will reach too far. What would be a decent lens that would give me some distance without busting the wallet? $300 to $400 would be probably as much as I could afford at this point.

I am considering the Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Nikkor lens, but am not certain I am going to be pleased with it. Thoughts?

 

[Light Artisan]

If you want relatively inexpensive reach you can go for the Nikon 55-200 but get the VR version, or the 70-300 VR (better build and image quality).

If I had $1,000 to start off with and had nothing, here's what I would buy to get the most bang for the buck:

Used D200 (~ $500)
Used SB600 (~ $175)
Used Nikon 18-105 (~$200, most are like new)
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (~ $100 used)

That would leave me with $25 to get a Compact Flash card, this will give you a very nice starter kit - granted your high ISO shots will need some help but you'll have a decent flash and a nice f/1.8 prime to give you more light.

 

[RDOwens]

If I had $1,000 to start off with and had nothing, here's what I would buy to get the most bang for the buck:

I like this approach. What if we bumped that to $1500 firm? What would you suggest then?

I appreciate your help with this. If anyone else would like to join in, I am all ears.

The D200 is not something I had considered, but will be looking into that body the rest of today. Thanks.

 

[orb9220]

Yep either a D200 or D90 used or refrub would be a great start. Would go D90 if at all possible. As will give you an additional 2 stops in speed and one stop of increased dynamic range. When I had my D200 I really didn't like to use it above 400. And at 800 iso occasionally and rarely used 1250. With D90 1600 iso no biggy concern and even 3200 when needed. Tho the D200 is sexy to hold and a dream to use.

Wouldn't worry about flash or tripod as can be added later.

My main lenses are the Tamron 17-50 & 55-200vr at the present and a good setup. Tho the 70-300vr is a better option. Adding a 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8 to the kit is also a great and cheap option.

Looking into used or refrub can stretch the budget and these are the prices I am seeing on craigslist.

D90 - $625-$700 body only usually primo shape with all accessories and less than 20k clicks. Picked up mine used 2 month's ago for $675 only 5 months old used as a backup. Now amazon showing new for $739

D200 - $475-$550 body only and want one with under 20k clicks if possible. Bought one used 7 months ago for $525 and sold to finance my D90. Great camera tho and as mentioned a dream to use and gives you that sexy tingly feel. But not the greatest performer for lower light and indoor situations.

Tamron 17-50 f2.7 - New $479 used around the $350 mark. Picked up mine used for $350. Tack sharp and great all around performer. And still using as my main kit lens. As replaced the cheaper 18-55 kit lens. And usability in lower light and Image IQ went up quite a bit.

55-200vr - Best Bang for the buck period. New $200-$250 used and refrubs around $140. Picked up mine used for $125. And is lightweight and compact for around town. Not the best build but for the used price not too concerned as cheap to replace. And been using it quite a bit around town walkabout lens and is a decent performer.

70-300vr - Probably the best zoom lens for under $550 new or $400 used. Better build & optics as designed for both Fx and Dx bodies. A bit larger and heavier. Will start to get a tad soft after 250mm or so but sharpens up in post quite nicely. If into sports and wildlife in good light then this is the lens for most shooters. As the other options for sports & wildlife take a giant leap up in prices.

Next up the line is the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. But is out of your budget considerations at this time.

Primes yep would pick up the 35mm f1.8 or for some may prefer the 50mm f1.8 for the kit. Comes in handy for lower light & indoors.

As to flash and tripod I would add later when I could justify and define my exact needs. As considerations have to made depending on style & needs. For me that means 3yrs later and no flash or tripod. And do have a monopod I use occasionally.

For pics taken with the D200 or D90 with all the lens mentioned above.
Just check out my Lens Sets at flickr. And hope something to help make your decisions.
.

 

[RDOwens]

Tamron 17-50 f2.7 - New $479 used around the $350 mark. Picked up mine used for $350. Tack sharp and great all around performer. And still using as my main kit lens. As replaced the cheaper 18-55 kit lens. And usability in lower light and Image IQ went up quite a bit.

I have found the following on Amazon.

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 SP XR Di II VC (Vibration Compensation) Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras ($549 after rebate)

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with hood for Nikon-D DSLR Cameras ($460)

I'm assuming you have the second. Is that correct?

Does anyone know if the VC is worth $90?

 

[orb9220]

Well many have said the older non-VC is a smidgin sharper. No personal experience tho.
And can see how VC would give an additional stop or so for static type shots. But wouldn't do anything to help capturing motion in lower light situations.

Also the VC is suppose to be a tad better AF speed.

Personally it would just come down to funds. If $90 wasn't a big deal then would probably go the VC. But for me $90 can be like two months of additional savings.

But quite happy with the non-VC older version.
.