Lens and Nikon Help please...

[PaintedAngels]

I have been reading here and online for over a month and decided the D90 is for me. I mostly shoot indoors with natural lighting using a tripod. Doing more portrait type photos...thus getting the 35mm f1.8. I want to get another type lens for outdoor photos that will will vary in distance. My budget is around 1300.00 So far these are my choices in that range. This is my first dslr.


To go with the D90 and 35mm f1.8

Choices: All Nikkor lens VR

1) 18-105 f3.5-5.6
2) 55-300mm f4.5-5.6
3) 18-105 f3.5-5.6 + 55-200 f4.5-5.6 (2 lens combo)

Any other suggestions are welcome.

Thanks in advance for your advice. It is most appreciated!

[OsmosisStudios]

Ideally? 16-85 + 70-300 + 35/1.8. 620+590+200 = 1410. Those are B&H's NEW prices, but you should be able to find all those used if you really look. And they're your best bet.

Of course, that doesnt count the D90 body.

[PaintedAngels]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Ideally? 16-85 + 70-300 + 35/1.8. 620+590+200 = 1410. Those are B&H's NEW prices, but you should be able to find all those used if you really look. And they're your best bet.

Of course, that doesnt count the D90 body.

Right now I found that I can get the D90 new with the 70-300 and the 35/1.8 for my budget. Both VR lens.
I can keep in mind the 16-85 for down the road.
Thanks!

[Shokinen]

The 70-300 + 35/1.8 mm is a nice starting kit for your budget. You will cover most of the situation but don't be affraid to get closer using the 35mm. Fill your frame

But I would seriously consider/budget for the 16-85mm. This lens is very sharp at any focal lenght (a little bit softer at 16 but not much) and very convinient. If I had to choose only one it would be this one. It's on my camera 70% of the time.

Check my flickr for real example. This is exactly what I'm using. You can check the exif file (click on a picture / click on Actions / Click on View Exif Info) to see what lens / focal lenght I used.

Hope this helps.

[bruceliv]

IMHO, 35mm lens makes a poor portrait lens. You have to get so close to your subject, that it tends to distort facial features.

Since you've mentioned you're interested in low-light shooting, I'd suggest the new D7000. No DX camera made to date has ISO capability of this.

One lens to do everything? I purchased the brand new 24-120mm f/4.0 VR for exactly your lens budget -- $1300. It's wonderful, sharp and fast. You can always add to your system later.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by bruceliv

It's wonderful, sharp and fast

I'll be the first to admit the lens is wonderful and sharp (i;ve tried it out, and its quite nice), but it's NOT fast. f/4 is fine outdoors or in good light, but anything else? notsomuch.

[bruceliv]

Not fast compared to...
Not as fast as the 17-55mm f/2.8DX
Not as fast as primes.
Much faster than any kit lens.

I've used the 24-120mm indoors with available light. It is quite fast for what it can do. The AF reacts precisely in a fraction of a second. In terms of DoF like a 1.4 prime, you're absolutely correct.

The new 24-120 is a marvel of modern optical technology and very carefully thought out. Actually, it's the most imperfect lens I've ever owned It is a compromise of every important feature one could want in a carry all. I wont write details of what I've found so far (unless asked). But it handles every difficulty especially well. It takes a bit of practice, but does everything not perfectly, but very well indeed.

With Nikon's lineup of high ISO capabilities, an f/4 is fast enough (for what this lens is designed to do.)

[firebox40dash5]

I wouldn't blow my money on the D7000 just yet if it's not in the budget, which it sounds like it isn't. Bodies come and go, glass is forever. Well, maybe not forever, but lenses stay current and hold their value better. Next year, the D7000 will probably be $100-200 cheaper new, and much less used, than it is now, while a good lens might drop a few bucks. My 70-300mm VR is still worth what I bought it for used 2 years ago.

I've seen plenty of 70-300mm's selling for just <$400 lately, and used 16-85mm's for just >$400. You could pretty easily score both, and even a new 35mm f/1.8, for about $1k. I've owned all three for at least a year, and they're all great for general use. Though the 16-85mm is a bit overpriced new, and the 70-300mm is borderline new.

I couldn't stomach paying nearly $1.5k for a 'walkaround' zoom that isn't an f/2.8. Especially one that doesn't go particularly wide or long. I'd use it on an FX/film camera (if it lost about $500), but it seems wasted on DX. But I'm the type that doesn't see the point in the 24-70mm or 17-55mm, because I have faster primes if my regular zoom lens is too slow.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by bruceliv

Not fast compared to...
Not as fast as the 17-55mm f/2.8DX
Not as fast as primes.
Much faster than any kit lens.

I've used the 24-120mm indoors with available light. It is quite fast for what it can do. The AF reacts precisely in a fraction of a second. In terms of DoF like a 1.4 prime, you're absolutely correct.

The new 24-120 is a marvel of modern optical technology and very carefully thought out. Actually, it's the most imperfect lens I've ever owned It is a compromise of every important feature one could want in a carry all. I wont write details of what I've found so far (unless asked). But it handles every difficulty especially well. It takes a bit of practice, but does everything not perfectly, but very well indeed.

With Nikon's lineup of high ISO capabilities, an f/4 is fast enough (for what this lens is designed to do.)

1 stop is faster, yes (than say, an 18-105 f/3.5-5.6) but hardly revolutionary. The reason to get the 24-120 isnt necessarily the f/4 as it is the excellent optical quality (which I granted you in my original response that you seem to have ignored).

Your post sounds like a mix of A) a Nikon ad and B) someone who's defensive about having spent that much money on a lens that, while good, is still subject to a sort of buyers remorse. Just my grasp of it, at least.

The 24-120 is designed for FX, in that the f/4 max aperture is best used with the higher ISO levels and quality available on the FX end of the market. Its also designed for FX in it's focal length, in that 24 on DX is 36, which is less-than-useful for walkaround.

Instead, for DX, the 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR would be more suitable, though, as you noted, it is a FULL STOP SLOWER (zomg!). Its infinitely more useful, though. Another excellent option is the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5. No VR, no Nano coat, and it's DX only, but it covers a 28-105 range, is no faster/slower (on average, at least) and is optically excellent.

[bruceliv]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

1 stop is faster, yes (than say, an 18-105 f/3.5-5.6) but hardly revolutionary. The reason to get the 24-120 isnt necessarily the f/4 as it is the excellent optical quality (which I granted you in my original response that you seem to have ignored).

I read it. The optical quality is obvious and not the only point of my post. I read before I answer posts.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

post sounds like a mix of A) a Nikon ad and B) someone who's defensive about having spent that much money on a lens that, while good, is still subject to a sort of buyers remorse. Just my grasp of it, at least.

Absolutely absurd. You are getting very close to making a personal judgement about me, of which you know NOTHING, rather than responding to the discussion about the lens. If you want evidence, go into my link below and view the images starting from Oct. 21 to the present. These are not images where there's any "remorse" demonstrated. FYI, I show remorse when someone close to me is ill and/or in pain -- not over material things. So lay off your psychoanalysis.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

24-120 is designed for FX, in that the f/4 max aperture is best used with the higher ISO levels and quality available on the FX end of the market. Its also designed for FX in it's focal length, in that 24 on DX is 36, which is less-than-useful for walkaround.

I agree it's designed for FX. But many users feel the 24-120mm is too short for FX and not short enough for DX. For me, it's fine (considering I've spent 3 years using the 35-70mm F2.8D as my carry-around). My wife, who's not into wide angle photography, likes the lens very much on her D5K. Also, now we have to consider the DX as having high ISO capability, even with higher pixel count! (I'm hoping the D7K will not end up with defraction problems because of the higher density.

Osmosis,
You apparently didn't comprehend my statement regarding perfection. I have a perfect macro lens. It's the CV-125 Macro Apo-Lanthar. It is tack sharp from 1:1 to infinity. It is tack sharp from f/2.5 to f/22 at every focal length. The bokeh is like silk. The color rendition is perfect. There is no CA. And no focus breathing. It is perfect and I spent over $2000 for it. It is manual focus. It took me about a week to even find and focus on the subject. The focus ring turns 630º from end to end. Yes, the lens is marvelous at distances greater than closeup, but some idiot will come along and say, "oh, that lens isn't so good, look how hard you have to work to get it to focus at 30 feet!" Obviously, that lens wasn't made for that person. But the lens is still perfect.

If you've read my example, you should understand that I believe Nikon made a wonderful carry around lens. It focuses remarkably close (a surprise for me). It's bright and quite fast on the D700. It's a mechanical gem. It's not too heavy. It's tack sharp. CA is controlled. Flare and ghosting is controlled. There's distortion at the extremes -- easily correctible in PS. For me, it'll take a little practice to optimize my technique in order to show off this glass at its best. Maybe it's not PERFECT, I'd rate it excellent for the job it was designed to do -- definitely a keeper.

----------------------------

Firebox said:
"I couldn't stomach paying nearly $1.5k for a 'walkaround' zoom that isn't an f/2.8. Especially one that doesn't go particularly wide or long. I'd use it on an FX/film camera (if it lost about $500), but it seems wasted on DX. But I'm the type that doesn't see the point in the 24-70mm or 17-55mm, because I have faster primes if my regular zoom lens is too slow."

I have many fantastic primes too!. I took a Nikon clinic some time ago with Vincent Versace. He clearly demonstrated how a great zoom had advantages for the creative photographer over primes. For example, a 50mm prime, 15 feet from the subject, will yield one perspective for the image. A 24-70mm zoom will yield many perspectives of the same subject standing at the same distance.