D90!! What next??

[compleks]

Sorry to make another of these threads, but I'm pretty excited

I finally bit the bullet and bought myself a DSLR (D90). As it stands I only have the body and a kit lens (18-55mm).
Sooo, I'm after some lens recommendations!

I've heard a lot of talk about the 'Nifty 50'. Is there a specific lens you could recommend??

I would like a good telephoto lens for 'nature/wildlife' photography. Also for sports photography... ??

I would also really like a macro lens??

Okay, so that's not very specific. Perhaps you guys could recommend some of your favourites?
Maybe a dream lens if money were no option, and a more realistic budget version if possible??

Cheers.
excited!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by compleks

I've heard a lot of talk about the 'Nifty 50'. Is there a specific lens you could recommend??

THe Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. Best bang for the buck you'll find

Originally Posted by compleks

I would like a good telephoto lens for 'nature/wildlife' photography. Also for sports photography... ??

Nature and wildlife generally means 400+, while sports usually means fast aperture. A good 70-200 f/2.8 will go a long way for both, though you may find it a bit short for animals.

[QUOTE=compleks;1082848]
I would also really like a macro lens??
[/QUOTE

Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR. Best bet.


Of course, all this is going to cost a fortune. FIgure out what you want first, then decide.

[dbevisjr]

@Osmosis... Wouldn't the 35mm f/1.8 be better on his D90 (1.5 crop)? (That is, instead of the 50mm.)

[Sterling]

Better? It's slightly wider. Depth of field won't be as narrow. Whether that's better depends on what you're shooting.

[alexsimpson]

Originally Posted by dbevisjr

@Osmosis... Wouldn't the 35mm f/1.8 be better on his D90 (1.5 crop)?

It would.....but its more expensive.....hence the 50mm bang for buck

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by dbevisjr

@Osmosis... Wouldn't the 35mm f/1.8 be better on his D90 (1.5 crop)? (That is, instead of the 50mm.)

I never liked the 35mm. Found it a bit short (I use my 50 as a portrait lens, mainly) and I never liked the rendering it provides. The 50mm gives a more rich feel, where as the 35mm feels antiseptic.

It's also a good deal more expensive.

[candleman]

agreed
50mm f/1.8 > 35mm f/1.8 .......IMHO

depends on the budget what we could recommend

[compleks]

Thanks for the replies!!

It seems as though I can pick up the 50mm for about $150, if I'm looking correctly?
That seems like a good place to start. I've never done much portrait photography, but I would definitely like to learn.
I can't really afford/justify lashing out on lenses at this stage, but I'll keep your recommendations in mind for when the time is right.
I guess my next question would be about lighting. I know NOTHING about lighting, outside of the on camera flash (which I know is pretty rubbish...right?).

I would like to take some more portraits. Is there a flash you might recommend as a complete novice?? I'm not sure what other situations would really require the use of a flash.

Thanks again everyone

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by compleks

I would like to take some more portraits. Is there a flash you might recommend as a complete novice?? I'm not sure what other situations would really require the use of a flash.

Thanks again everyone

Since the D90 has a commander flash, the SB-600 (if you can get one still), would be great off-camera.

[compleks]

Thanks again Osmosis!

Gee, flashes don't come cheap... I'll have to start saving