what to do. what to do.

itsjustbrandy · Mar 20, 2009

I am itching to buy a new lens real bad... I received the kit you see below as a gift from my love, but now I want to get a second lens.

I'm wondering... if you had the D90 w/ 18-105 already, what would be your next purchase?

I am most interested in macro, then portraits & landscape. :mrgreen:

If I got it now, I would like to stay around the $2-300 range.

I was considering picking up the 50mm 1.4 Everyone says that they love it, and it looks like its 'standard' in everyone's collection. Plus I could pick one up for like $150. Is this one that you think would compliment the lens I already have?

Or should I just save up for a bad sumumma...:mrgreen:

I appreciate your input.

SrBiscuit · Mar 20, 2009

a little piece of my tax return will be going to the sigma 10-20

AlexColeman · Mar 20, 2009

If you want macro, Nikon makes a couple excellent macro lenses. The older 60 f2.8 is close to your price range, and makes for excellent macro and portrait shots.

Mitch1640 · Mar 21, 2009

iv heard amazing things about tokinas 100/2.8 macro its 400 bucks but im sure its more than more it considering iv read numerous reviews in mags that say it is just as good if not better then other comparable macros, its also cheaper, and full frame so it can last you forever.

Kegger · Mar 21, 2009

I'd save up and get a 70-200 2.8, either the Nikkor or Sigma.

Both are great pieces of glass and are built like tanks.

Overread · Mar 21, 2009

I would say save and go for something like the following macro lenses which whilst good at macro would also prove to be strong portrate lenses as well:

Nikon 105mm VR macro - only macro lens with built in VR so very much a boon to have for your portrate work and though the VR is less effective at macro work its still good to have

Tamron 90mm macro - good solid macro lens and should work well for portrate work

Sigma 105mm macro - again a good macro lens and a good focal length for portrate work.

Note that shorter macro lenses (like the nikon 60mm macro and sigma 70mm macro) are good at both macro and portrate work but will have short working distances when doing macro shooting (they will have to be very close to the subject which makes things much harder to do)

Also macro work needs a good flash in many cases - or a good solid tripod (And a still subject). I would say go for a nikon speedlite flash as that will give you a good allround flash unit for all your shooting -a ringflash is a step up and can be used for both macro work and portrate work, but beyond that its generally not strong enough for a wider variety of uses. A diffuser (I like the lumiquest softbox) is a good investment also and helps to reduce the glare from the flash.

ANDS! · Mar 21, 2009

Are you sure that 50MM 1.4 is Autofocus? I would make sure and check on that. Otherwise it is the strongest of the bunch. I would certainly get that before investing in one trick ponies like a macro lens so soon into your photography foray.

AlexColeman · Mar 21, 2009

The 50 1.4 is autofocus, just from the body, it is a good choice, but the 60 or 105 is better. 105 by far is the best, for macro, portraits and short tele.

JerryPH · Mar 21, 2009

If I was you I would save for one of the following:

- Sigma 105mm F/2.8 becuase of it's incredible sharpness in portraits and fantastic 1:1 macro.

- Sigma 60mm macro because of it's wider focal point, good macro and very good portrait lens

- 105mm F/2 macro Nikkor, the most expensive one of the bunch but the sharpest of the bunch, fastest, and great macro.

I say it often... buy the best lens you can afford, and for that if that means waiting and saving longer, that is what I do. I never settle for 2nd best when it comes to my lenses.

LordNikon · Mar 21, 2009

If you like the 50mm, I strongly recommend you to wait a little, the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX Nikkor, will be on the market for the en of March. The suggested retail is $199.00 so is going to be cheap...

AlexColeman · Mar 21, 2009

They have a 105 F2? Nice, but I like my 2.8 w/ vr.

ANDS! · Mar 21, 2009

AlexColeman said:
The 50 1.4 is autofocus, just from the body, it is a good choice, but the 60 or 105 is better. 105 by far is the best, for macro, portraits and short tele.

Nikon made a Manual Focus F/1.4. I was cautioning the OP to be sure that for that price, they were certain of what they were getting.

AlexColeman · Mar 21, 2009

Ah. Good point, I forgot about the older ones.

JE Kay · Mar 21, 2009

Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro. Super sharp lens. :thumbup:

TheSon · Mar 21, 2009

JerryPH said:
I say it often... buy the best lens you can afford, and for that if that means waiting and saving longer, that is what I do. I never settle for 2nd best when it comes to my lenses.

You see... I am the exact opposite...

I say buy the crappy lenses NOW. Find out what you like working with i.e. focal points and apertures. Then, after your trained and confident, sell the used/crappy lenses for the same price you bought them for, spend the money (that you've saved) and buy the lens you want... Already knowing what is the best match for what you're looking for.

It irks me when people start a hobby and spend thousands of dollars before they even know what they're comfortable with... (like snowboarding or surfing... different sizes and styles).

Just my 2cents... I've been buying cheap lenses off ebay, reselling them for more after I use them, and now I am ready (and confident) to buy a nice lens that is ideal for myself. Definitely wasn't when I first started out though.