# Best Lens (Nikon d90)?



## dcmoody23 (Jan 1, 2010)

Okay, so I only plan to buy only one lens (for now).  What would you recommend I get?  I would like to limit myself to $700-$800, but because I know that lenses are interchangeable with cameras I will spend more if I can find something I know will last me.

I would like something with auto focus, & would like 200 mm in length, but I'm open to suggestions..
The faster the better.  I'm looking for the best quality I can get.

& I also plan to buy a 50mm lens in April, so let me know what you think!


Thanks!


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 1, 2010)

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8

If you want more range for an all around lens, Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 1, 2010)

I couldn't agree with you more that faster lenses are much better but slower once aren't entirely THAT BAD. 
Good old 18-200 isn't that bad. It's generally soft thus all you do is boost the sharpness to about 5 (+/-2 based on your flavor) and have a blast. Nikon | AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom | 2192
I'm a big proponent in using flash as a light source - on or off camera, thus the _common theme_ you hear that you need 1.8 lens to get great results is not something I agree or follow. I've YET to be in an environment where I needed anything wider then 5.6 or using flash wasn't an option.

Good Luck


----------



## Captain IK (Jan 1, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8
> 
> If you want more range for an all around lens, Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3



I don't think you'll find a f2.8 zoom lens for $700-800.  Unless you buy used.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 1, 2010)

Captain IK said:


> PhotoXopher said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8
> ...



You can get a brand new Sigma 70-200 for $750 and photo4less.com


----------



## dcmoody23 (Jan 1, 2010)

Well I definitely want the f/2.8, so I'm probably going to hold off on stuff to shoot <50mm.. (That and I may be able to steal my step mothers sigma macro lens every once in a while )
I like the Sigma model you mentioned (70-200mm f/2.8 but I'm reading lots of reviews on the lens creeping... I'm thinking it may be well worth it to cash in on the Nikon model..
Or is there anyone who owns the sigma and wants to throw in their $0.02?
Thanks a lot!


----------



## wescobts (Jan 1, 2010)

Nikkor 16-85 VR, nice price point, nice lens, many good reviews :thumbup:


----------



## Craig G (Jan 1, 2010)

dcmoody23 said:


> Or is there anyone who owns the sigma and wants to throw in their $0.02?
> Thanks a lot!


 For me the Sigma 70-200 2.8 over the Nikon version was a no brainer. For half the price I got better glass to play with. I can always trade up if I feel I need VR. or the Nikon name on my lense but for now I am pleased with the Siggy. 

I look at it this way. Sigma is in business solely for the married guy with kids who wants to stay married with kids.


----------



## dcmoody23 (Jan 1, 2010)

Haha, great point.. You should pitch that to the head of sigma as their new motto.

But you're right.. Might as well save my money .. that was I'm closer to my next lens.

Thanks.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Jan 1, 2010)

Craig G said:


> dcmoody23 said:
> 
> 
> > Or is there anyone who owns the sigma and wants to throw in their $0.02?
> ...



Or the broke college student haha


----------



## dhilberg (Jan 1, 2010)

If you're serious about getting a 70-200 f/2.8, then I would second the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED lens that PhotoXopher suggested. You can get them used for $700-$800 or so. It's an excellent lens, and it performs better than the Sigma (by the numbers), despite being a 12-year old design. Plus the build quality is outstanding. Also, it will hold its value more if you ever decide to sell it. If you want better performance than that, you'll have to cough up the dough for a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR, or buy the new 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.


----------



## kylehess10 (Jan 1, 2010)

I got a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for only $460 in brand new condition for my D90. Definitely a lens worth the price IMO.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Jan 1, 2010)

I don't mean to thread jack, sorry if I am but I have a 55-200mm AF-S VR f/4-5.6 lens right now.  If I were to upgrade to the 70-200mm would I see a big image quality improvement?


----------



## dcmoody23 (Jan 1, 2010)

A new sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for only $460? Where did you find that!?


----------



## Live_free (Jan 1, 2010)

dcmoody23 said:


> A new sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for only $460? Where did you find that!?



He said "brand new condition" meaning it wasn't new, just slightly used.


----------



## Craig G (Jan 1, 2010)

Live_free said:


> dcmoody23 said:
> 
> 
> > A new sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 for only $460? Where did you find that!?
> ...


 I've seen the older model going for ~$500 on feebay. A new HSM II haven't seen it less than $775.


----------

