# Need help deciding which lenses to buy - D90



## chyidean (Jan 18, 2009)

I'll be making the purchase of a new D90 within the next two weeks. I settled on that camera because the sensor is essentially the same as the D300, which means similar high-iso performance. I can live with the 11point AF instead of the 51 on the D300, and the slower shutter speed. I also prefer the ergonomics of the camera as opposed to the 40d and 50d from Canon.

Now my problem is finding lens to go with the new purchase. I'm about 70% sure I'd be going for the Nikon 18-200mm as a walkaround lens, unless someone here dissuades me from doing so. I'm also considering getting a ultra-wide angle with that for landscape shots - most likely the Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X. I'm mainly wondering what you guys think of this combo, or if you have any suggestions if you were in a similar situation.

Thanks!

Edit: What I meant to say was that would the 11-16mm be necessary for the $600 I'd have to spend, and would that 2mm between 16 and 18 truly make a difference? It would be great if someone could dig up a comparison picture between pictures taken by a 11mm, 16mm, 18mm, 35mm, 55mm, etc etc. That would be fantastic!


----------



## Captain IK (Jan 18, 2009)

I have the D90.  As for lenses I use the kit lens 18-105...it's not bad for a kit lens and I consider it very useful.
I also have a 50 f1.8...excellent lens
As for telephoto I use the 70-300 and love it.

I have not heard good things about the 18-200, but did consider buying it at one point.  Settled on the combination I have now because it covers a wide focal range.


----------



## chyidean (Jan 18, 2009)

Captain IK said:


> I have the D90.  As for lenses I use the kit lens 18-105...it's not bad for a kit lens and I consider it very useful.
> I also have a 50 f1.8...excellent lens
> As for telephoto I use the 70-300 and love it.
> 
> I have not heard good things about the 18-200, but did consider buying it at one point.  Settled on the combination I have now because it covers a wide focal range.



I haven't had real life experience with either but based on Ken Rockwell's reviews the 18-200mm is sharper than the kit lens (which he doesn't like). However, I HAVE heard in some sites (forgot where) that the 18-200mm wasn't as good as he made them out to be. The thing is, I just don't really have a desire to be constantly changing lens, so I thought I could just stick with one that has a large range and eat the distortion. Do you have any thoughts about an all-around lens?

Also, another quick question: does VR on wide angle lens matter?


----------



## Captain IK (Jan 18, 2009)

I don't think VR is AS important on a short lens, but I'm sure it doesn't hurt.

It sure comes in handy at 300mm though!
As far as having one lens do all... I guess that depends on your expectations and what you typically shoot.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 18, 2009)

Lenses like the 18-200 are the Swiss-Army knife of the photographic world; they do a lot, but none of it especially well.  The main issue with that particular lens is a wide range in build quality.  Unlike almost all other Nikon lenses which are very consistant in their build quality, there are reports of this one being everything from tack sharp to mediocre at best.  My own experience shows it to be acceptable but not spectacular.



chyidean said:


> I just don't really have a desire to be constantly changing lens, so I thought I could just stick with one that has a large range...


 
If this is the case, why not go for one of the higher-end super-zooms and save a bunch of money.  After all, the ability to change lenses is the main reason to own an interchangable-lens camera.  

With respect to your last question, VR is not really necessary at very short focal lengths.


----------



## chyidean (Jan 18, 2009)

tirediron said:


> Lenses like the 18-200 are the Swiss-Army knife of the photographic world; they do a lot, but none of it especially well.  The main issue with that particular lens is a wide range in build quality.  Unlike almost all other Nikon lenses which are very consistant in their build quality, there are reports of this one being everything from tack sharp to mediocre at best.  My own experience shows it to be acceptable but not spectacular.



Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about multiple sharp zooms that cover the same range?

Thanks!


----------



## NateS (Jan 18, 2009)

chyidean said:


> Thanks for your input, I really appreciate it. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about multiple sharp zooms that cover the same range?
> 
> Thanks!



Yes, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Nikon 70-300 VR.  You'll never notice the 20mm gap between 50 and 70 and both lenses are very sharp and excellent performers for their price range (or for any price range really).


----------



## chyidean (Jan 18, 2009)

Any thoughts on these lenses:

Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X
 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
 Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 18, 2009)

chyidean said:


> Any thoughts on these lenses:
> 
> Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
> Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor




All these lenses are good.  The little 55-20 is really sharp for the money.

Something for you to consider.  Since you are spending cash on a serious amateur camera you may want to steer your lens collection toward full frame lenses.  The full frame format keeps moving down the line.  Your next body after the D90 might be full frame and you'll be stuck with a sack of dx lenses to sell.

IF you think this may be a possibility, grab a DX wide lens like the 11-16, but everything else in FX.   Maybe get the Tokina 12-24, an 50mm prime, and the 70-300 to start if your on a budget.

or a 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 etc etc.


----------



## NateS (Jan 18, 2009)

chyidean said:


> Any thoughts on these lenses:
> 
> Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 AT-X
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
> Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor



All are good lenses for their price.  The 55-200 is rarely long enough for decent wildlife shooting.  300mm is very helpful in my experiences (though still even a bit short often).  The 18-55 is decently sharp, but I was never a fan of the contrast/colors from that lens (at least for portraits).  If swapping between my 50mm f1.8 and the 18-55, I could pick out which was which based on color contrast alone.  Also the 18-55 had absolutely horrible nasty bokeh when I had one.

The above all said, I think you'll get better quality out of the 18-55/55-200 combo than the 18-200.  It sounds like my suggestion of the Tammy and 70-300 VR are a bit out of your budget..


----------



## chyidean (Jan 18, 2009)

Oops I meant the VR version for the 18-55.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR[/FONT]

I think I might get the FX lenses later because
a) The Nikon lenses are moderately cheap so it wouldn't be a big deal
b) The new DX lenses have VR and my hands aren't exactly the most steady. I have a Canon compact and the IS really helps a lot.

Are there benefits in FX other than being futureproof?

Edit: Yeah, Nates, I'm wasn't sure if I could justify spending that much money for a hobby... I'm a student, after all.


----------



## NateS (Jan 18, 2009)

chyidean said:


> Oops I meant the VR version for the 18-55.
> 
> [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR[/FONT]
> 
> ...



To my knowledge, the VR version is optically the same as the non VR version so problems I mentioned having with that lens would be the same.


----------



## chyidean (Jan 18, 2009)

NateS said:


> To my knowledge, the VR version is optically the same as the non VR version so problems I mentioned having with that lens would be the same.



Hmm... If I'm needing something in that range can I get a [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D?

It's supposedly really sharp and narrow dof for bokeh.
[/FONT]


----------



## chyidean (Jan 19, 2009)

Okay sorry for double posting, but what if I opt for only the 50mm prime, and the Tokinan wide angle?

Basically, my collection will consist of:
Tokina wide angle
50 prime
55-200

Will I miss the range between the 50 prime and the wide angle?

Edit: Can any of the above serve as a macro lens? I think I'm already pushing my budget - the lens above total slightly over 1K.


----------



## chyidean (Jan 20, 2009)

I've been told by a couple of my friends who are into photgraphy that I'm overanalyzing things... I may just end up grabbing the 18-200mm and possibly the 50mm f/1.8. I'll shoot with that combo, and see which end of the spectrum I mostly shoot in, sell the 18-200, and then get a HQ lens in the focal length I like. Thoughts?


----------



## scyzoryk_o4 (Jan 20, 2009)

Hey, I have both the nikon 18-200 and the 50 1.8, im really happy with this combo. I have the prime lens for portraits and any situation where i need particularly low aperture size and sharp pictures and for everything else i can just use the 18-200 which is sharp enough, especially when your still getting used to a new camera.


----------



## NateS (Jan 20, 2009)

chyidean said:


> Okay sorry for double posting, but what if I opt for only the 50mm prime, and the Tokinan wide angle?
> 
> Basically, my collection will consist of:
> Tokina wide angle
> ...



No, none of the above can serve as a Macro lens.  The 50mm least of all as it's focus distance is far from what I'd call close.  55-200 can get closer than the 50mm but still not enough that I'd say it can be a Macro.  The Sigma 70-300 APO I talked about can though.  Regarding the 50mm and missing the wide end....yeah, but how much depends on what you are shooting.  For portrait type stuff I never missed it at all honestly, but when doing landscapes or cars, stuff like that, you need a wider lens in my opinion.  

If you want some examples, the link in my sig has both the Sigma 70-300 and the 50mm f1.8.  All of the family section and all of the "Lillian Snelson" section are with the 50mm f1.8.  All of the animal section and all of the insects and flowers are with the Sigma 70-300 APO.  Maybe that will give you some kind of idea of what each lens can do.

You could also do something like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (400ish) and the Sigma 70-300 APO (200ish) and be at the same price as the 18-200.  The 70-300 is really good if you can keep it around f/8 or smaller and the both can act as a "Macro" lens and get you fairly close for those types of shots.  The Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a very good lens for the price as well.


----------



## Yves Gaudet (Jan 20, 2009)

I own an 18-200 and a sigma 10-20 and i like them both.  Since the Sigma has a 10 year warranty and the image quality, built and size are good I would go with the Sigma.

L.L.Lozeau - Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
L.L.Lozeau - Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Nikon


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 20, 2009)

chyidean said:


> I haven't had real life experience with either but based on Ken Rockwell's reviews the 18-200mm is sharper than the kit lens (which he doesn't like). However, I HAVE heard in some sites (forgot where) that the 18-200mm wasn't as good as he made them out to be.



If you are talking about the 18-105 kit lens, I don't have any information on it... but if you are talking about the 18-55 I can tell you (I own both it and the 18-200 VR) that the 18-55 is VASTLY superior in image quality. A combination of the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR is about half the price (more or less) than the 18-200 and will give much better image quality throughout the range.

I am a big fan of both the 18-55VR and the 55-200VR, and use them extensively even though I own some pro level glass. The 55-200VR is every bit as sharp if not a touch more so than the vaunted 70-200VR (although it is inferior in every other way, as well you might expect for a lens that costs 1/10th of what the other one does).


----------



## sabbath999 (Jan 20, 2009)

NateS said:


> To my knowledge, the VR version is optically the same as the non VR version so problems I mentioned having with that lens would be the same.



Acutally, they are a bit different, although I can't really tell any difference in the images... the newer VR version does not use ED glass.


----------



## chyidean (Jan 20, 2009)

NateS said:


> but when doing landscapes or cars, stuff like that, you need a wider lens in my opinion.



I mentioned the Tokina in the list. Wouldn't that count as wide angle?


----------



## hossmaster (Jan 22, 2009)

I purchased a 50mm 1.8 fairly quickly after I got my D50 and that lens usually stays on the camera.  I find that this lens has all of the F/stop range I could use and forces me to move around and think about the picture I want to take.  I can go from shooting buildings and candid's  during the day and then plop the camera on a tripod and do wonderful night shots.


----------



## Dhaines94 (Jan 22, 2009)

I just upgraded from the D40 to the D90 and love it.  I have the 18-200vr, 50mm 1.8 AF and the 10.5mm fisheye.   Once you get used to the fisheye, you can take pics at a very wide angle without much distortion.  I would recommend the 50mm 1.8 - it a great lens and only cost about $100.

here is an example landscape with the fisheye


----------

