D90 lens advice.

[yrsonicdeath]

So I've made the switch to Nikon with a D90 and the kit 18-105mm lens. I didn't have much invested in Canon equipment and besides I gave my camera to my Dad. Anyway, here are the lenses I am planning on buying in the coming year or so, in order, and I'd like some critique/suggestions.

Nikon 50mm 1.4

Nikon 85mm 1.8

Tokina 11-16 2.8

I'm also conflicted as to whether I should keep the 18-105 or not, but that is a decision to make when the time comes.

 

[DarrenG]

How about the 18 - 200mm VR? See here.

It's every bit as good as Ken says and is the only lens I bother using now on my D70 and D90.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

That idea has been creeping around I had been leaning towards something a little faster after having always used f/3.5+ and always desiring a little more.

 

[OreoCookie]

Sounds good, although there is a gap between 16 and 50 mm. The Tokina is supposedly the best WW zoom from crop lenses around, if photozone is to be believed.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

Sounds good, although there is a gap between 16 and 50 mm. The Tokina is supposedly the best WW zoom from crop lenses around, if photozone is to be believed.

I still have the 18-105mm that came with the D90. Although I'd like to replace that to better round out the rest of the lenses, perhaps with something a little better. Maybe the 18-200 as recommended above.

 

[jaduffy108]

It would be very helpful if you could provide some specifics as to what you anticipate shooting.

For example...if you plan to shoot a lot of landscapes, I would highly recommend WA primes. You can get older, manual focus primes for landscapes that are VERY high quality for relatively little money.

I love the Nikkor 17-35. Even on a APS-C, it would be a 25-50ish....great for street work. For many people, that would be a *very* desirable range. Also, the lens would be exceptional on FF should you go FF in the future.

The 85 is a no brainer. Ideal for portraits in FF. APS-C...still quite good...but pushing it.

I am *not* a fan of the 18-200 and would suggest keeping the 18-105 as a walk around as it has a better cost/performance ratio than the 18-200 imo. Otoh, the 18-200 *is* a convenient lens. Convenience vs quality is an inner debate only you can have. Mr. Rockwell and others have seriously overhyped this lens imo.

Here a good resource for Nikon lenses...
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

 

[NEiMac]

I notice you like primes, id add the Sigma 30mm 1.4 to the list.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

It would be very helpful if you could provide some specifics as to what you anticipate shooting.

One application I desire is for just spur of the moment, family type applications, which is what I had planned on using the 50mm f/1.4 for and sometimes the 85mm. Landscapes are perhaps my favorite thing to shoot, but at the same time I want some versatility in my line-up. I also would like to start experimenting with some macroish stuff and I figured I'd use the 85mm for that as well. My reasoning for including the Tokina in there is that since I started taking pictures I've never had a great WA lens and that one looks super versatile.

For example...if you plan to shoot a lot of landscapes, I would highly recommend WA primes. You can get older, manual focus primes for landscapes that are VERY high quality for relatively little money.

I will definitely look into this. I had shied away from this because it definitely wouldn't be ideal for quick shots, but I had completely overlooked its landscape application.

I love the Nikkor 17-35. Even on a APS-C, it would be a 25-50ish....great for street work. For many people, that would be a *very* desirable range. Also, the lens would be exceptional on FF should you go FF in the future.

Looks like a great lens, but it looks a little out of my price range at this point. The good thing about this hobby though is it is a life-long thing and there may be a day where something like that ends up in my kit.

I am *not* a fan of the 18-200 and would suggest keeping the 18-105 as a walk around as it has a better cost/performance ratio than the 18-200 imo. Otoh, the 18-200 *is* a convenient lens. Convenience vs quality is an inner debate only you can have. Mr. Rockwell and others have seriously overhyped this lens imo.

Noted, I have read Rockwell's review of the lens as well as others, good and bad. I'm not really sure this kind of range is useful to me. I prefer to get closer to my subject and rarely zoom way in.

I notice you like primes, id add the Sigma 30mm 1.4 to the list.

Thanks, I'll look into that!

 

[ChrisA]

How about the 18 - 200mm VR?

But it's slow at f/5.6 and not many people use the 200mm end of the range.

I do have both the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8. On a cropped frame body the 50mm is a bit of a long lens, good for head and sholders dhots indoors in small spaces. the 85mm is best used outdoors or in a place like a gym.

If yu are wanting a longr lens the "gold standard" is the 80-200 f/2.8 or the more expensive 70-200. Pick up a good used 80-200 for $650.

The "kit" lens is good and I think that range is good for 90% of what most people do but always wider is better.

What I do is shoot with just one lens. Pick one and stick with it. I'll get as many good shots with just one lens as if I took three with my. Just different shots. If you take a 50mm with you you will start seeing things that look good with a 50. Same if you took something else. Yes you will miss a lot but it is equal in the end.

All in all I'd say you have a good setup picked out. But no Macro?

 

[yrsonicdeath]

If yu are wanting a longr lens the "gold standard" is the 80-200 f/2.8 or the more expensive 70-200. Pick up a good used 80-200 for $650.

I don't really foresee myself wanting or needing this kind of range, but you never know.

But no Macro?

Sigh, I'm only 22 so I have a lifetime of lenses to buy. I really want to experiment with macro, but I think having a solid lineup of everyday type lenses is more important. After I have that under my belt I think I'll have a look at the 105mm or whatever else is out then.

Thanks for your first hand advice, very helpful!

 

[OreoCookie]

By the way, Sigma has also a 50 f/1.4 lens which is optically better than the AF-D 50 f/1.4. On the other hand, Nikon will release a newly designed AF-S 50 f/1.4 -- which makes a nice portrait lens. 85 mm on crop sensors is already a bit much in my opinion.

I might also think about getting Tokina's 12-24 mm lens instead. It leaves less of a gap (24 mm on crop corresponds to about 35 mm on film, a very classic and useful focal length). It's a bit slower, but that's not as significant with wide-angle lenses. The optical quality is top notch, too, and you will probably get it cheaper as well.

 

[Westside guy]

For example...if you plan to shoot a lot of landscapes, I would highly recommend WA primes. You can get older, manual focus primes for landscapes that are VERY high quality for relatively little money.

The problem is, those old wide-angle primes are just not that wide when used on a crop-sensor camera like the D90. 20mm or 24mm is a very nice focal length on a full-frame camera, but less amazing on DX.

On the other hand, if the OP thinks he'll eventually go full-frame it might make more sense to stick with lenses that are compatible with both formats.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

By the way, Sigma has also a 50 f/1.4 lens which is optically better than the AF-D 50 f/1.4. On the other hand, Nikon will release a newly designed AF-S 50 f/1.4 -- which makes a nice portrait lens.

Great! When I'm ready to buy that 50mm I will surely compare the two and see which one works better for me.

I might also think about getting Tokina's 12-24 mm lens instead. It leaves less of a gap (24 mm on crop corresponds to about 35 mm on film, a very classic and useful focal length). It's a bit slower, but that's not as significant with wide-angle lenses. The optical quality is top notch, too, and you will probably get it cheaper as well.

Cheaper is good! I've read the 11-17 is also really hard to find as well.

On the other hand, if the OP thinks he'll eventually go full-frame it might make more sense to stick with lenses that are compatible with both formats.

I really wanted to go full-frame this time around, but I realy just can't afford it at this point in my life. When the D700 came out I was SO tempted, but reality kicked in and I ended up getting the D90 and I'm pretty satisfied with it so far.

Thanks for all this great advice. It has definitely given me a lot to think about!

 

[OreoCookie]

Great! When I'm ready to buy that 50mm I will surely compare the two and see which one works better for me.

Photozone has great reviews. The Sigma is considerably larger and supposedly has better built quality. On the other hand, Nikon's 50 mm f/1.4 is not significantly larger than its little brother (which can be an advantage, too).

Cheaper is good! I've read the 11-17 is also really hard to find as well.

Which one do you mean, the 11-16 or the 10-17? The latter is a fisheye zoom (also very good, but a rather special lens). The 12-24 is great and I'm still tempted to ditch my kit lens (the 18-70) in favor of one (can't afford it at the moment and don't have much time to take pictures anyway).

I really wanted to go full-frame this time around, but I realy just can't afford it at this point in my life.

Full-frame equipment is a lot more expensive. Do it when you really have the money.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

Which one do you mean, the 11-16 or the 10-17? The latter is a fisheye zoom (also very good, but a rather special lens). The 12-24 is great and I'm still tempted to ditch my kit lens (the 18-70) in favor of one (can't afford it at the moment and don't have much time to take pictures anyway).

I meant the 11-16. I don't really have any desire for a fisheye lens.

 

[Imbalance]

I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 (among others). I love using the Sigma for general photography. It is a heavy lens, and I would say the build quality is good, but not as good as pro Nikkors. I've used the up snowy mountains at -10C and in the dessert at 40C and it's still as good as when I got it.

Regarding the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D -- this is also a jewel. If you don't mind putting up with the plastic finish then you'll soon realise it produces superbly sharp and crisp photos. Just to note, Nikon has announced a new 50mm f/1.4 with AFS (Canon speak: USM) that will be out in a few months. If you want to go straight to the pro end (and prices..) you might want to wait a while before deciding on which 50mm to get.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

Regarding the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-D -- this is also a jewel. If you don't mind putting up with the plastic finish then you'll soon realise it produces superbly sharp and crisp photos. Just to note, Nikon has announced a new 50mm f/1.4 with AFS (Canon speak: USM) that will be out in a few months. If you want to go straight to the pro end (and prices..) you might want to wait a while before deciding on which 50mm to get.

I was planning on getting the 50mm f/1.4 anywa and I think the new lens corresponds to about when I was going to get it. December right? The only thing that would sway me is if the price went up significantly.

 

[Westside guy]

I was planning on getting the 50mm f/1.4 anywa and I think the new lens corresponds to about when I was going to get it. December right? The only thing that would sway me is if the price went up significantly.

The price that's been quoted is $439 (in the US anyway). This is more than the current version; but given that the current version is less than perfect down around f/2.8 and below (as is true of the f/1.8 as well, at least away from the center), it seems to me that'd be money well spent.

 

[yrsonicdeath]

The price that's been quoted is $439 (in the US anyway). This is more than the current version; but given that the current version is less than perfect down around f/2.8 and below (as is true of the f/1.8 as well, at least away from the center), it seems to me that'd be money well spent.

That's not too much more. I would be comfortable paying that for better performance for sure.

 

[icetyu]

I just bought the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for my new Nikon D90. It's a great lens, sharp and great for low light. The build quality is also excellent. It's a bit tricky to find good perspective and composition shooting that wide. But the ultra wide angle at 11mm does create some amazing photos.

 

[sileo]

[...] sharp and great for low light. [...]

Not missing VR (resp. IS/OS/VC) at all? Wouldn't that be interesting/essential for shooting in low-light situations? Just about to take off photography-wise with my D90 and i am now considering a wide-anlge lens. The reviews of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 are quite compelling, i think.
I am also looking for a good lens in order to get the maximum out of D-Movie mode consequently - if i got it right - that would have to be a lens with manual aperture control. suggestions anyone? certainly i do not wish to spend too much money..

 

[OreoCookie]

Not missing VR (resp. IS/OS/VC) at all? Wouldn't that be interesting/essential for shooting in low-light situations?

No, not at all, for several reasons:
(1) The lens is an ultra wide angle lens and you don't need VR with those, because camera shake is much less visible.
(2) The large initial aperture more than compensates for the lack of VR. Most lenses with VR (I'll exclude professional glass for the moment) have initial apertures of f/4 or f/5.6. With VR, you can reduce camera shake (not movement of your subject!) by two to three stop. If you have f/2.8, then this is two stops faster than f/5.6. However, with the larger initial aperture, you can use faster shutter speeds and you can avoid motion blur by the subject. VR is useless to reduce motion blur.

 

[sileo]

thanks for the explanations!
Any comments on CA with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8?

 

[OreoCookie]

thanks for the explanations!
Any comments on CA with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8?

If you shoot RAW, CA can be easily corrected.

 

[sileo]

this is maybe getting a bit off-topic - if so please stop me.

I never really started shooting RAW (NEF) so far. Would you generally recommend it or just in situations where you know you're going to hate yourself afterwards if you don't? How would you handle the massive data volume which assumedly comes with RAW/NEF?

thanks again and in advance!