Time to choose the lenses -Nikon- : help!

[Minissa]

Now that I know which brand I want, it's time to have a serious talk : lenses!

First of all, I chose the Nikon D90.

Secondly, the things I want to do will probably help you to help me to determine which lenses to buy :

- Take pictures in low-light / day-light
- Macro
- A good zoom for my excursion in the woods
- Landscapes (probably a wide-angle)
- Portrait

I'd like at least one good lens very sharp and doesn't have lots of distortion.

I've read a lot of reviews about Nikon's lenses and it's difficult to choose.

My price range is between 700 to 900$ and hope to buy at least 2 or maybe 3 lenses.

---

What do you think about these lenses? :

18-70mm Nikkor
18-55mm
105mm VR Micro-Nikkor f/2.8
50mm Nikkor f/1.8
50mm Nikkor f/1.4 AF-D or f/1.4 AF-S

It can be also another lens brand, doesn't matter as long as it's good like Nikkor (or even better, why not!).

Any other suggestions, feel free to let me know!

 

[kardon]

I'm looking at what you want, and your price range....they don't exactly go hand and hand.

The 18-70 will take care of alot of things except macro, wide angle, and low light. How ever its zoom capability to me sometimes feels limited but what ever.

Macro lens well is going to kill your budget, its a 600-700$ lens either way. My recomendation

18-200mm
and a 50mm Nikkor 1.8D from what i hear the price diffrence to the 1.4 isn't worth it.
This leaves you with little macro capability though, so thats and issue maybe look used the macros going to cost alot.

 

[AlexColeman]

I would say 16-85, and 50 1.8. I had both, and I feel it will best serve you.

 

[kundalini]

I think you may need to really short list your wants.

One lens that may knock on the door of three of your wants is the 105mm f/2.8 VR. Portraits, low light (f/2.8) and macro. I got mine a couple of monthe ago and I do believe the price has risen, but it should still be in your price range and only for one lens.

On the 50mm, the f/1.4 may be slightly better build quality and certainly a bit faster, my opinion is the f/1.8 is almost as good.

I only have Nikkor lenses, but some third party lenses are supposed to be quite good. There is also the option of used.

 

[Phranquey]

One recommendation would be the 105mm f/2.8 non-VR. This can be had for about half of the VR version, leaving some coin in your pocket for a few other options. IMO, VR on any lens can be a help when needed, but I don't think it's worth twice the price at this particular focal length...and the non-VR version has fantastic reputation for it's sharpness (I have one....).

The 105mm VR is definitely a nice lens, but the only reason I didn't purchase it was that, for some odd reason, the closer you get to macro, the less effective the VR becomes.... This is the polar opposite I was hoping for, since being hand-held at 1:1 is where it would be the most needed.

 

[anubis404]

The lenses I'd reccomend:

Low Light: 2.8 zoom or 1.8> prime
Macro: Tokina 100mm F2.8
"A good zoom": Sigma 18-50 F2.8 HSM
Landscapes: Sigma 10-20 F3.5 or Tokina 11-16 (better but more expensive).
Portrait: Both a 50mm F1.8 and an 80-200 F2.8

Total:
$1900. These lenses should last you awhile.