Taking the plunge on the D90.... Now what lens?!!?!?

[Atlas77]

Okay, this is my last thread on "what equipment to get". Im taking the plunge on a used D90 body yet I still have so much confusion on which lens to get.

Im on a tight budget here, used is fine. Im looking for a sharp lens with good noise reduction. Those are the most important features to me. Im looking for an "all-around use lens" something I can use for everything until I buy my second lens.

My plan was to buy the D90 body, then get the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, this way I could buy the D90 and not the D3000 or D5000.

(http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html)

but im questioning things with it, since I need this for all around use will it not be good since it dosent zoom? and since the aperture isnt adjustable it wont change to fit my needs.

Would something like the Nikon 18-105 be better? or the 18-135? The tamron 17-50 looks great but its slightly out of my price range.

Suggestions would be great.

 

[PhotoXopher]

See what suggestions you get, but I may be willing to sell you my 18-250. It's been a wonderful lens for me but I recently got the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.

I'm still uncertain if I really want to sell it because it is such a great all in one lens, and it's a freak copy to boot.

 

[Dominantly]

I would grab the 18-105. It's a great kit lens, and I couldn't be happier with it.

The 50mm 1.4/1.8 are great lenses but like you said no zoom, no range. They would make a great second choice though, I never really take mine off the camera.

 

[PatrickHMS]

I would grab the 18-105. It's a great kit lens, and I couldn't be happier with it.

You mention the 18-105mm lens, I assume you are referring to the AF-S version with VR...

How does the AF-S 18-135mm compare to it. I know it doesn't have VR, but the extra focal length could be useful at times.

Not talking about a new one priced like a new one, but used they are getting pretty affordable around here.

Just wondering.

 

[Dominantly]

I dont have hands on experience with the 18-135mm, but from what I have read, it seems as though the general consensus is that your money would be better spent on the 18-200mm lens. It is a bit more costly, but you get what you pay for with it.

I just looked up the price of the 18-105mm and I must now say that you might be better with picking up the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon 18-55mm VR for around $140 or less, and then using the rest of the money to save up, or to pick up a 50mm f/1.8........
The 18-55mm lens is incredibly sharp with little to no distortion, and zooms/locks very quickly. Cheap, but very effective.

SO my new suggestion is [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon's 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR USED ($130 on Amazon) + Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for around $130. Come out of it for less then $300 with some good glass, and save up for zoom.

[/FONT]

 

[PatrickHMS]

I dont have hands on experience with the 18-135mm, but from what I have read, it seems as though the general consensus is that your money would be better spent on the 18-200mm lens. It is a bit more costly, but you get what you pay for with it.

I just looked up the price of the 18-105mm and I must now say that you might be better with picking up the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon 18-55mm VR for around $140 or less, and then using the rest of the money to save up, or to pick up a 50mm f/1.8........[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The 18-55mm lens is incredibly sharp with little to no distortion, and zooms/locks very quickly. Cheap, but very effective.[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]SO my new suggestion is [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon's 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR USED ($130 on Amazon) + Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for around $130. Come out of it for less then $300 with some good glass, and save up for zoom.[/FONT]

Dom,

I already have the AF-S 18-55mm (have both VR and non VR versions - GREAT lens for the $$), and the AF-S 55-200mm VR. I had a copy of the 18-200mm VR, but for the price I didn't like it at all. I would rather cover that focal length with the 2 kit lenses after owning the 18-200mm. Don't care what KR says about it.

Also already have an AF 50mm (1.4 and 1.8), so I don't need to buy any of what you suggest, as I already have them. But thanks anyway.

I am specifiically trying to find out specifically what I asked, and nothing more. A specific answer to a specific question. And the answer might suggest another option for another lens to the OP, since the OP did mention the 18-135mm lens.

The post I responded to mentioned the 18-105mm as being pretty good, and I was wondering how the IQ of the 18-135mm stacks up to the 18-105mm VR lens.

But thanks for responding.

 

[Atlas77]

The 18-105 was one of my first choices when I was looking through lenses.

But isnt the 18-55 a "stock" lens?

This ruins my plans of "taking the plunge" for the D90 and getting the 50mm for cheap. Now i have to drop more money. Time to sell something else!

 

[frXnz kafka]

The 18-105 was one of my first choices when I was looking through lenses.

But isnt the 18-55 a "stock" lens?

Both the 18-55 and the 18-105 are kit lenses (probably what you mean by stock). The 18-55 is low-end zoom, and the 18-105 is more of a mid-range zoom in terms of quality. Both lenses are capable of taking fine photographs, though they have their limitations (particularly slow apertures).

 

[Atlas77]

The 18-105 was one of my first choices when I was looking through lenses.

But isnt the 18-55 a "stock" lens?

Both the 18-55 and the 18-105 are kit lenses (probably what you mean by stock). The 18-55 is low-end zoom, and the 18-105 is more of a mid-range zoom in terms of quality. Both lenses are capable of taking fine photographs, though they have their limitations (particularly slow apertures).

Id rather have the 18-105, due to the better focal length.

does the 18-105 perform macro well?

 

[Atlas77]

More research:

The reviews on the Sigma 17-70 are great.

Sigma | 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro Lens for Nik | 689-306 | B&H

I also found the Nikon 18-70.

Nikon | 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens | 2149

Ahhh so many choices!

 

[Dominantly]

I dont have hands on experience with the 18-135mm, but from what I have read, it seems as though the general consensus is that your money would be better spent on the 18-200mm lens. It is a bit more costly, but you get what you pay for with it.

I just looked up the price of the 18-105mm and I must now say that you might be better with picking up the [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon 18-55mm VR for around $140 or less, and then using the rest of the money to save up, or to pick up a 50mm f/1.8........[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The 18-55mm lens is incredibly sharp with little to no distortion, and zooms/locks very quickly. Cheap, but very effective.[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]SO my new suggestion is [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon's 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR USED ($130 on Amazon) + Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for around $130. Come out of it for less then $300 with some good glass, and save up for zoom.[/FONT]

Dom,

I already have the AF-S 18-55mm (have both VR and non VR versions - GREAT lens for the $$), and the AF-S 55-200mm VR. I had a copy of the 18-200mm VR, but for the price I didn't like it at all. I would rather cover that focal length with the 2 kit lenses after owning the 18-200mm. Don't care what KR says about it.

Also already have an AF 50mm (1.4 and 1.8), so I don't need to buy any of what you suggest, as I already have them. But thanks anyway.

I am specifiically trying to find out specifically what I asked, and nothing more. A specific answer to a specific question. And the answer might suggest another option for another lens to the OP, since the OP did mention the 18-135mm lens.

The post I responded to mentioned the 18-105mm as being pretty good, and I was wondering how the IQ of the 18-135mm stacks up to the 18-105mm VR lens.

But thanks for responding.

Sorry, I guess I sort of responded to your post and the OP's, when really I was making recommendations to him, and not you.
You asked how the 18-135mm compares to the 18-105mm. Well it has very little additional range on the 105, like you mention lacks VR which is counter productive to it's additional reach, has probably some of the worst distortion from Nikkor, and when comparing capabilities comes out one notch lower then the 18-105VR. It has stronger geometric distortion throughout the focal range, and a decent amount of color fringe.

You have already owned one of the most popular and best performing mid range zooms, and were not fond of it, so you may in fact not notice any shortcomings with the other two lenses and might enjoy them both. There are quite a few reviews with image comparisons out there for further research.

 

[Dominantly]

The 18-105 was one of my first choices when I was looking through lenses.

But isnt the 18-55 a "stock" lens?

Both the 18-55 and the 18-105 are kit lenses (probably what you mean by stock). The 18-55 is low-end zoom, and the 18-105 is more of a mid-range zoom in terms of quality. Both lenses are capable of taking fine photographs, though they have their limitations (particularly slow apertures).

Id rather have the 18-105, due to the better focal length.

does the 18-105 perform macro well?

No, it does not have good macro.

 

[Dominantly]

Well you have to decide what type of photos you would like to take. That would make it easier to pick a good lens.

Do you like good Bokeh? Do you enjoy a good shallow DOF? Do you want to shoot portraits?

Do you want to take closeups of birds in trees? Of flowers?

 

[Atlas77]

Good bokeh is a must.

Any thoughts on the 17-70 and the 18-70?

Pictures are macros, land/cityscapes, portraits once in a while. pretty much a wide range of stuff.

edit: add in a good amount of action. but thats just about speed.

 

[Dominantly]

Well then I am going to have to stick with the original recommendation of the 18-55mm and the 50mm 1.8mm....