D90 but what lens?

[nikon_roy]

Hi,

I'm new to digital photography but very excited to learn everything about it. I have got my eyes set on the Nikon D90, but I'm still confused about what lens to pick

Soon I'll be heading towards NYC for a city trip I want to make photos of architecture, landscapes, street shots, museums and of course some family photos. At home I'll shoot portraits and landscape but also sports on occasion. Macro and wildlife I would like to do in a couple of years so it's not important for now.

I have two lens set-ups in mind:
1. Tokina 11-16 f2.8 / Nikon 35mm f1.8 / Nikon 55-200mm VR
2. Nikon 18-200mm VR II

Option one has better image quality, lower apertures but you'll need to change your lens more often, which might be annoying at times...especially when going to NYC for a city trip. You'll obviously also carry multiple lenses with you.

Option two has comfort and range but it's not wide. It has less image quality all-round and more image corrections will need to be done in PhotoShop.

I also wonder if you really use the zoom function between 18mm and 55mm a lot (especially in a city)? With a 35mm, is it really a matter of taking a few steps towards or from the subject?

When we look at price both options are fine. I have about $1200 (excl. D90). Still, I am absolutely clueless in what's the best choice. It really is convenience & time vs. image quality I guess.

Other lens combinations are welcome as well. So if this was your call...what would you choose if you had to start from scratch with a budget of $1200 and want to cover the 16 or 18mm till 200mm range?

Oh and don't worry. I'll definitely be taking a Photography course

Thnx!

[zona5101]

humm, seems like you have put some thought into it. You know, sometime photography is funny, we think we know what direction we want to go then before you know it we're off exloring things we never thought of... example some people fall in love with macro ophotography, others develop a passion for portraits, or sports or... you get the idea. I think I would be leaning towards the 18-200, one lens. Then as you spend some time behind the camera you can decide where the 18-200 doesn't work and choose lens to fill the gaps. Good lucj - half the fun is the research!

[dcclark]

If you are interested in taking portraits / family shots, and probably museums, then you might start feeling the lack of range between 16mm and 55mm, if you go with option #1.

On the other hand, an ultrawide is really fun for architecture and landscapes though. But it's also hard to use an ultrawide well -- it's not just a matter of "getting everything in" (if you use it that way, you'll have tiny subjects and lots of empty space). You need to get close, take advantage of lines and perspective.

Personally, if you think you can handle the ultrawide, I'd recommend the ultrawide plus the 18-55 kit lens, which is an extremely spiffy little lens. Use the 18-55 for your portraits, everyday shots, and general walkabouts. Use the ultrawide for everything else.

One warning though -- In terms of "taking a few steps towards the subjects", you need to be careful with an ultrawide. Ultrawides, by their design, create enormous amounts of perspective "distortion" in photos -- objects are stretched towards the edge, giving a bit of a "zoom!" effect. That's definitely NOT good for portraits and family shots, unless you want Aunt Martha to appear to have a giant head and no feet!

[wannabephotographer]

Just get the 18-55 and play around with it until you get better. Then get what you need later when you figure it out.

[Jamie Hibbert]

I reckon you want to go for a single lens. Use it and learn how to get the most out of it. Find its limits and sweet spots. Learn to position yourself to get what you require, move around and try perspectives. Then you will have a fantastic working knowledge of that lens and your camera. Then look to buy a new lens.

BTW the D90 is a great camera!!

[nikon_roy]

Thanks all for sharing your thoughts. Really appreciate it!

@David: With regards to the "taking a few steps towards the subjects". I understand that this won't really work with an ultrawide lens. I was referring to the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 lens Have my eyes on this one for low-light situations (indoor) and it's sharpness.

@Wannabephotographer: How is the 18-55 when photographing buildings in e.g. NYC? Does it have a lot of barrel distortion?

[dcclark]

Distortion is correctable fairly easily in post-processing... and ultrawides are, in general, notorious for that sort of distortion anyhow.

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by nikon_roy

Other lens combinations are welcome as well. So if this was your call...what would you choose if you had to start from scratch with a budget of $1200 and want to cover the 16 or 18mm till 200mm range?

You could check into the Nikon 16-85mm VR and the Nikon 70-300mm VR. You'll be covering 16 to 300 and will only have 2 lens to switch. They are also both well builded and sharp.

They are a setup over the 18-200 in term of optical quatity, a setup over the 55-200 in term of build quatity (metal connector, gasket to protect from dust, etc.) and I think it's around your budget. You wont get the narrow DoF of a f1.8 35mm lens but I consider the lens more for specific purpose. The 16-85mm / 70-300mm is the best bang for the buck option for a serious amateur IMO to cover most of the situation you will encounter.

Feel free to check my Flickr for examples. This is the setup I'm currently using.

Hope this help.

[OsmosisStudios]

Shokinen has a point: 16-85+70-300, with a 50 f/1.8 if you can swing it.

[nikon_roy]

Thanks all for the replies.

What do you think about the following?

I want to avoid investing in lenses which I might need to upgrade in a year or two.

The 16-85 is a good lens but it doesn't replace a wide lens and it's f/5.6 at 85mm. Some reviews state that optic quality is good but not a whole lot better than the much cheaper Nikon 18-55 kit lens (Ken Rockwell). At least it doesn't seem to justify the 3x difference in price. What is your opinion on this?

For the same price I could get a used (like new) Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. Would this be a good move? I know that it doesn't cover for a wide lens but it seems that it's worth the investment.

The reason why I'm looking for a fast lens is because I like to shoot in low-light environments.

Thanks!