Need advice on which Lens

[Karinu]

Hi, I am new to DPS but would love to get some advice/opinions.

I am getting ready to purchase a Nikon D90. Rather than purchase the kit with basic lens then adding on a bigger zoom, I am considering buying the body and then a single lens, the Tamron 18-270mm.

I shoot portrait, kids, sports (baseball), travel/landscape. Is there any reason that I would want 2 separate lenses or be unhappy with one larger lens? My thinking is that this lens will cover all my needs and eliminate needing to change lenses while traveling when I want to shoot a landscape with my family in the foreground then zoom in to a detail for the next shot (as an example...I hope this is a clear enough explanation).

Down the road I'll probably add on more specialty lenses, of course, but these are my thoughts on just getting my set up started.

Thanks so much! I'm excited about being here.
Karin

[zona5101]

That is probably a fine approach. Buy a general purpose zoom lens and get out and shoot with it. You'll find out where the lens limitations are while shooting the types of pictures you like to shoot. Then you can use that experiece to decide what, if any, will be your next lens to fill that gap.

[LeeR]

Remarkable lens. I don't see a problem. Of course the quesiton is this then: why even bother with a DSLR? Why not just get one of the really great point-n-shoots? I have been really impressed with the new crop of p-n-s cameras and they will do the job you want at a fraction of the price.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Karinu

Is there any reason that I would want 2 separate lenses or be unhappy with one larger lens?

Quality.

Most superzoom lenses like the 18-270 are fine for general snapshots, but dedicated wide-angle, mid-range and telephoto lenses are going to give considerably better image quality than a superzoom. Dont get me wrong: for family snaps and vacations, this can be the ideal solution. It just wont net you the proper quality you can get from a dSLR>

That being said, you also said you were interested in:

Landscapes
Portraits
Sports/kids

Landscapes usually involve a wide-angle lens, and while 18mm is pretty wide, most people end up with something like the 10-24.

Portraits: any lens can take a portrait, but generally speaking you'll want a large-aperture prime. Lucky for you, the 50mm f/1.8D will autofocus on the D90: for $130, JUMP ON IT.

Sports/kids: Generally speaking we're talking fast shutter speeds in low-light situations at long-ish focal lengths (especially so for sports). In this case you're f/6.3 maximum aperture at 200+mm is gonna be way too slow to get what you need. That's why pros go for the 70-200 f/2.8 (the f/2.8 being key) zoom lenses.

A dSLR is designed to be a speciality tool. Thats why lenses are interchangeable. As LeeR mentionned, you may be better off with a superzoom P&S camera (like the new P100)

[Karinu]

Originally Posted by LeeR

Remarkable lens. I don't see a problem. Of course the quesiton is this then: why even bother with a DSLR? Why not just get one of the really great point-n-shoots? I have been really impressed with the new crop of p-n-s cameras and they will do the job you want at a fraction of the price.

Ah, yes, but the small sensor still limits the final result. I won't give up my point and shoot but am ready to "move up." Good point, though, which is exactly why I'm wondering if the big lens is the best way to go. Thanks!

[Karinu]

[QUOTE=OsmosisStudios;904869]Quality.

Most superzoom lenses like the 18-270 are fine for general snapshots, but dedicated wide-angle, mid-range and telephoto lenses are going to give considerably better image quality than a superzoom. Dont get me wrong: for family snaps and vacations, this can be the ideal solution. It just wont net you the proper quality you can get from a dSLR>


A dSLR is designed to be a speciality tool.

I am definitely looking to be moving up into that specialty area. I was shooting with a Lumix superzoom but still felt limited.

So now my question is, since lenses are costly and this is my first DSLR, what do you recommend as a good approach to get started. Baseball season is coming so I do need a good sports-capable lens but probably can't get away without a basic lens as well, right? I also don't want to break the bank right away.

Thank you, thank you. This is such great advice from everyone. It's a lot to think about!

[OsmosisStudios]

As I said, sports usually means the 70-200 f/2.8, but you might be able to get away with the 55-200 or 70-300 (both wth VR and AF-S). They'll be fine for daytime baseball, but evening and night games or any kind of indoor sports will be tough.

I'd recommend the 16-85VR and the 70-300VR along with the 50mm f/1.8. That gives you a fantastic range and should be adequate for everything from landscapes to long-lens outdoor daytime sports.

[Karinu]

Well, no one ever claimed photography was an inexpensive hobby
I can't afford that 70-200 f/2.8 just now (at $1900) but am investigating the other two recommendations. Thanks again to all!