# Nikon D90 lens / flash beginners advice



## ripgroove (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi,

I've been interested in photography for a while and i'm soon going to take the plunge on my first DSLR.

I've been doing a bit of research into which one to buy and I think I have settled on a Nikon D90.

I could do with some advice on which lens/flash to get. The main uses for the camera would be outdoor/nature (including low depth of field) type photography and the other would be low light situations such as clubs/parties.

Would I be able to do all that with just 1 lens?

As for a flash, would an SB-600 do the job for the clubs?

Sorry if some of that doesn't make sense, still getting used to the terminology!


----------



## TJ K (Apr 26, 2009)

Yes that is a great flash. And what is your budget that will help a lot on the lens choice. For low light at clubs check out the new Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 and nature you might want something that reaches further with a fast aperture like the 70-200 f/2.8 but that lens is 1,800 so what is your price range.


----------



## ripgroove (Apr 26, 2009)

My budget isn't quite that high for the time being. I could probably stretch to £600 for the flash & lenses, is that going to get me anything decent? Is there a good all rounder I could spend all the money on or is it better to get 2?


----------



## TJ K (Apr 26, 2009)

The kit 18-105 is a decent lense. I mean if isn't amazing at low light but that's where the 35mm would come in for 200 us dollars.


----------



## ANDS! (Apr 26, 2009)

I don't think you are going to get the D90, lens and a flash for 600 pounds.  Not unless you want to buy used, and there is no reason you shouldn't buy used.  I would also look into purchasing it from a New York based photography company, unless the tax on import would be cost prohibitive.  I don't know what the used market is for cameras in your area, but thats where I would start with first.

Also, if you have no interest in the HD video function of the D90 (beyond the "Oh geez whiz bang!) factor, I would actually look into picking up a D200 for cheaper than the D90.  It is still an incredible camera even though its about 4 years old or so, and other than the lcd and sensor, has the exact same build/ruggedness as the D300.  Worth a look if you're not all about getting the "latest."


----------



## KmH (Apr 26, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> I don't think you are going to get the D90, lens and a flash for 600 pounds. Not unless you want to buy used, and there is no reason you shouldn't buy used. I would also look into purchasing it from a New York based photography company, unless the tax on import would be cost prohibitive. I don't know what the used market is for cameras in your area, but thats where I would start with first.
> 
> Also, if you have no interest in the HD video function of the D90 (beyond the "Oh geez whiz bang!) factor, I would actually look into picking up a D200 for cheaper than the D90. It is still an incredible camera even though its about 4 years old or so, and other than the lcd and sensor, has the exact same build/ruggedness as the D300. Worth a look if you're not all about getting the "latest."


 
IMO the better high ISO performance and image quality of the D90's CMOS image sensor (the same sensor that is in the D300) will be more valuable on the low light club scene than the nearly 4 year old design D200 w/CCD sensor.

Plus at about $800 US (body only) it's not that much less expensive than a D90 (body only). Best Buy.com was selling the D200 for a couple of weeks at $640 +tax US but that ended about 2 weeks ago.

As far as glass I'd also recommend the new 35mm f/1.8G if you can get one, since they've been on backorder for a time now. Plus, I would also get the $130 50mm f/1.8D AF, nifty-fifty. While learning how to effectively use those two and the camera body I would be saving for the 70-200 mm f/2.8.

It turns out I use the D90's video feature a lot more than I thought I would. Oh, I have both the D90 and the D200.


----------



## ANDS! (Apr 26, 2009)

With a flash and the cheap 50MM F/1.8 lens, low light performance is going to be a moot point.  If he goes the ebay route, hes looking at about 300 to 400 pounds for the D200 plus perhaps a lens.  Body only, he can use that difference and get  50MM F/1.4 and a SB600 plus Stofen diffuser.  

The D90 may have better ISO performance, but that doesn't mean the D200's ISO performance is "bad" - its all relative.  "Image quality" is a pointless qualifier.  The IQ on these cameras is superb, whether you get the D40 or the D3.  Only pixel peepers are truly going to bemoan a difference.  On a value scale, the D200 makes more sense, as we're looking at the full application of this camera, not just its use in one setting.


----------



## bdavis (Apr 27, 2009)

The flash choice is about the best low budget flash you can get, so you're right in thinking the SB-600. As for lens choice I'm not sure your budget, but the 50mm f/1.8 is a great low light lens and it's very cheap. I would also recommend a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8...its fast and a great standard zoom. Might be a little bit on the pricey side if your budget is small, but its worth it.


----------



## jdwyer (Apr 27, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> I would also look into purchasing it from a New York based photography company



what is it with New York photography companies anyway? Why are Adorama and B&H so popular? any coincidence they're both in NY or something else going on that I'm not aware of


----------



## KmH (Apr 27, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> With a flash and the cheap 50MM F/1.8 lens, low light performance is going to be a moot point. If he goes the ebay route, hes looking at about 300 to 400 pounds for the D200 plus perhaps a lens. Body only, he can use that difference and get 50MM F/1.4 and a SB600 plus Stofen diffuser.
> 
> The D90 may have better ISO performance, but that doesn't mean the D200's ISO performance is "bad" - its all relative. "Image quality" is a pointless qualifier. The IQ on these cameras is superb, whether you get the D40 or the D3. Only pixel peepers are truly going to bemoan a difference. On a value scale, the D200 makes more sense, as we're looking at the full application of this camera, not just its use in one setting.


I only quoted pricing for new equipment since with used the remaining useful lifetime of the equipment has an influence on price. 

Good on you for raising that possibility


----------



## ANDS! (Apr 27, 2009)

> what is it with New York photography companies anyway?



OP is in the UK.  Would be easier/cheaper than recommending a company on the West Coast.  Also, not all online photo-retailers are from NY, however the top two just so happen to be.  It's also a matter of stock:  the big two will more than likely have what you are looking for.  If they don't - chances are neither do the competitors.


----------



## photograham (Apr 27, 2009)

Adorama is my favorite regardless of location, I love their website


----------

