Lens Kit Overhaul

[AlexColeman]

Hey guys-
I am looking to overhaul my lens kit. I am looking for a better mid-range zoom, something wide, and possibly a portrait lens. I do believe I am covered in the tele. Budget isn't an issue. Thanks!

 

[tirediron]

Nikkor 24-70 2.8.

 

[AlexColeman]

Yeah, I have been thinking along those lines, but will it be wide enough on a D90? Should I consider the 14-24 or 12-24? So would it be 24-70, one of the aforementioned wides? How good will a 24-70, w/strobes portrait be? ANy other recommendations are appreciated.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Yeah, I have been thinking along those lines, but will it be wide enough on a D90? Should I consider the 14-24 or 12-24? So would it be 24-70, one of the aforementioned wides? How good will a 24-70, w/strobes portrait be? ANy other recommendations are appreciated.

A 24-70 will be good for half length and full body portrait shots, the 70-200 is probably better suited to tighter shots / headshots, assuming you're aiming at fairly conventional portraiture.

 

[Curiosity Cosby]

I hear very very good things about the 50mm & 85mm f/1.4 and also the 17-55mm f/2.8. Looks as though you already have the 50mm f/1.4 though. The 17-55mm would be a little wider for your D90 if that is what you're looking for.

 

[AlexColeman]

Ok, is the 17 DX? So, will for the mid, 17-55 and 24-70 are contenders, and I assume either will be good for portraiture, am I right? I am leaning to the 24-70, as it will tie nicely w/ the 70-200. I also do alot of travel photography, so I am looking at a wide. I am thinking 12/14-24 and 24-70. Is this going to be good and functional, I know big and expensive, but good?

 

[anubis404]

The 24-70 will effectively be 40-105ish on a D90, which are awkward focal lengths. I would say a 50mm F1.8 for general portraits, and an 80-200 2.8 for tighter portraits. A 17-55 would complement the setup nicely, but you could easily get away without it.


EDIT: oops, looks like you already have both the 70-200 and the 50mm. In that case, the 17-55 would be your best bet. Like I said before, the 24-70 on a cropped body can be a little awkward.

 

[AlexColeman]

Yeah, is the 17-55 FF? If so, that is a lucrative range for me.

 

[AlexColeman]

I just did a little research, and found 17-55 is not FF, I looked at the 17-35. I believe that that might be too limiting of a zoom range. Instead, I looked at 14/12-24, and the 24-70. That will set my range up nicely, and match my 200, any suggestions on this?

 

[AlexColeman]

Will the 17-55 retain value? I am putting off a FF upgrade for a few months, so I am thinking this lens might be a good choice. Thanks.

 

[dhilberg]

Keep in mind that you don't need to cover every possible focal length with a lens. If it were me I'd want the 17-35 to go with my 80-200. I already have a 50mm, so I really wouldn't be interested in the 24-70, unless I had money to burn, which I don't.

But if budget isn't an issue, then get the 14-24, the 24-70, and be done with it. You already have the 70-200, so they would be a perfect match. Upgrade to FX whenever, or since budget isn't an issue, do it all at the same time!

It's all you need unless you're shooting macro, professional sports, or wildlife.