Lens for a Nikon D90

Nikon_Dude · Jul 11, 2011

I have both the 35mm f1.8 and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and both are great lenses indoors.

Raian-san · Jul 11, 2011

I have the 50mm and Tamron 17-50mm and I must say, now that I got the Tamron lens, it's gonna stay on my body for awhile. It's around 300 something used. I got lucky and bought mine on Friday for $280 in good condition. That's $200 off retail right now. It's very sharp and I might sell the 50mm 1.8 just because I need money to buy other gears. 50mm is still the best bang for the $. If you're getting another lens, it'll cost around 200 for those kits lens. Spend another hundred and get the Tamron, you'll be happy with it.

Destin · Jul 11, 2011

The OP stated he needed a wide lens for indoor candid shots. I've used a 35 1.8, and on a crop body it just isn't wide enough for indoor spaces all the time. It's only 15mm shorter than the 50! Last I checked, 15mm wasn't a very big difference.

The op wants to shoot portraits, he can throw on his 50 1.8 and bam, he's shooting the equivalent of a 75 1.8, which is great for portraits. The tamron 17-50 is a great all around lens for what the op stated he wanted. Just because he was happy with his prime doesn't mean another prime is the best thing for him to get

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

I probably should have mentioned a budget. I want to spend around $300-400.
I used to own a Nikon D40 with its kit lens 18-55mm . I have just the 50mm lens and I need something to replace my 18-5mm lens but something possible better . Lets forget about portraits , I am perfectly happy shooting portraits with the 50mm lens. As you guys were calling it a "walk-around" lens , that's exactly what i meant. Something I intend to use for candids, street photography, people and a lil bit of everything. I do not want to spend too much , but as long as it meets what i need . Good quality image and sharp images is what I want , since i will be using it more like my everyday lens.

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

From reading all your replies , I have so far researched on the 35mm and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 . Not sure which one meets my requirement more.

Raian-san · Jul 11, 2011

The Tamron 17-50mm will meet your requirement because of 17mm starting point is pretty wide unless you go with 10-12mm super wide angle lens and it has constant f/2.8 aperture for low light situation. The 35mm is just a little shorter than the 50mm, so you might still feel a little cramped in some situation. With the 17-50mm, you can at least zoom out to 50mm and take portraits shots and it has better purpose like landscapes, nature, building and etc than the 35mm since you already have the 50mm. That lens is the best lens for your budget and fits your needs.

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

You are right the 35mm is very close to my 50mm lens . Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a better choice .

Any other suggestions would be nice guys. Thank you so much !!

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

Raian-san said:
I have the 50mm and Tamron 17-50mm and I must say, now that I got the Tamron lens, it's gonna stay on my body for awhile. It's around 300 something used. I got lucky and bought mine on Friday for $280 in good condition. That's $200 off retail right now. It's very sharp and I might sell the 50mm 1.8 just because I need money to buy other gears. 50mm is still the best bang for the $. If you're getting another lens, it'll cost around 200 for those kits lens. Spend another hundred and get the Tamron, you'll be happy with it.

From where did you get the Tramron 17-50mm ? You saved a lot , I am looking up some now and they are all around 400.

Raian-san · Jul 11, 2011

I always buy stuff on craigslist. There were two, one for $290 and one posted for $300 but the $300 didn't replied and didn't post if it was for Canon or Nikon.

I know, I guess he didn't know the price just went up $100. 2 weeks ago, it could be had for $369 new on Amazon. Checked last week and it went up like $461. I got lucky since I've been wanting that lens and it look almost brand new. I just did a quick shoot with it and it's really sharp, I'm sure there are other people who will say the same. For the price, and budget, it's probably the best zoom lens in the price range. Until I get an L lens, this lens will be on the camera for the time being.

It seem like it's been ages since I used a zoom lens, my D90 had 18-105mm, but I mainly used the 50mm 1.4 lens. Then I switched to Canon, and been using the 50mm 1.8 lens. Sometimes it's nice to be able to zoom. I felt the same with the 50mm, it's very cramped indoor and I simply can not take group pictures.

Nikon_Dude · Jul 11, 2011

I picked up my 17-50mm on craigslist as well, got it for $270. I agree with Raian, it's a very sharp lens and a very useful zoom range.

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

Just searched on cragslist and found 3 result for : $569 , $375 , and $325

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

Nikon_Dude said:
I picked up my 17-50mm on craigslist as well, got it for $270. I agree with Raian, it's a very sharp lens and a very useful zoom range.

You saved a lot too , LUCKY!!

~myStical~ · Jul 11, 2011

Raian-san said:
It seem like it's been ages since I used a zoom lens, my D90 had 18-105mm, but I mainly used the 50mm 1.4 lens. Then I switched to Canon, and been using the 50mm 1.8 lens. Sometimes it's nice to be able to zoom. I felt the same with the 50mm, it's very cramped indoor and I simply can not take group pictures.

Exactly ! 50mm isn't the best to use indoor , especially when in a small room. I can't make use of it.

flea77 · Jul 11, 2011

Destin said:
The OP stated he needed a wide lens for indoor candid shots. I've used a 35 1.8, and on a crop body it just isn't wide enough for indoor spaces all the time. It's only 15mm shorter than the 50! Last I checked, 15mm wasn't a very big difference.

Which is why I also recommended the 24mm 2.8D.

Destin said:
The op wants to shoot portraits, he can throw on his 50 1.8 and bam, he's shooting the equivalent of a 75 1.8, which is great for portraits. The tamron 17-50 is a great all around lens for what the op stated he wanted. Just because he was happy with his prime doesn't mean another prime is the best thing for him to get

I never said a prime was "the best", I offered it as a suggestion. Only the OP can decide what is "the best" for them, not I, and not you. I do not disagree that a 17-50 2.8 would be a reasonable choice, but I also think the primes I suggested are reasonable choices. While I can see clearly that you will never be a prime shooter, I fail to see why you are so against them. Both have their pros and cons, let the OP take both sets of recommendations and pick which one works best for them with what they do.

Allan