$1000 Budget, need lenses.

[Quasmo]

So last Christmas I got a D90, I haven't really had the chance to use it because I don't have a lens for it. I went to school for cinematography and used $20,000 lenses at school so I've always been kind of a lens snob. (a f/4.5 scares me because I'm used to a fixed ISO) Well now that I'm out, and broke, I'm looking to buy some mid range lenses for my D90 body. I've done some research and I think I want 2 lenses.

Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 ED VR II AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens

Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D Camera Lens

I've heard the 18-200 covers almost everything I need for normal shooting. I'm currently borrowing a 18-103 from a friend and I really like it. I will use this for stills.

The 50mm I would get for video (the reason I got the D90). I considered the 1.4 for the extra light but don't know if it's worth the extra $300. I assume not.

I would love to hear suggestions on what I should get for that price range. I have $300 in gift certificates to J&R (JR.com) So that's most likely where I will purchase them. Those 2 lenses come out to about $650 after microsoft cash back and gift certificates.

Better set?

Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR SLR Camera Lens w/ Vibration Reduction
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Pics taken this weekend with borrowed lens

 

[Dark Penguin]

A super zoom? Bleagh.

 

[whoiswes]

35mm F/1.8 is probably a better fit for the D90 as it's a crop camera. 50mm will be more like a mild telephoto. I have the 35 and LOVE it - worth every penny I paid and then some.

While the 18-200 is nice, it's heavy and spendy. You might play with some more primes first...and you can always rent a lens to play with it before buying.

 

[twistedlogic]

The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S ($200) and the 50mm f/1.8 ($125) would be a real nice start if you need to shoot in lower light (indoors). Definitely look into getting the 35 f/1.8 over the 50, as the 50 can be a little long on a 1.5 crop.

I'd skip over the 18-200 unless you really need the versatility, the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR will produce better results at a fraction of the cost.

If you prefer zooms, the 16-85mm VR coupled with the 70-300 VR would be a great pair to get started with. Depending on your "low light" needs, these two lenses are more than capable of producing stellar images. After these two lenses the next step up is "fast" glass, running +1000$ for just one lens.

 

[Quasmo]

Better set?

Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR SLR Camera Lens w/ Vibration Reduction
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

 

[jpeyton]

I'll go by used prices, since it would help stretch that $1000 even more.

What I've seen locally for sale on Craigslist:

70-300VR ~$400
50/1.8 ~$100
Sigma 105mm Macro ~$350 (or the Nikkor 105mm for ~$450)

 

[Quasmo]

After these two lenses the next step up is "fast" glass, running +1000$ for just one lens.

I think my dream lens set starts with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

Well, not really "Dream" kit, but something I eventually want to own.

 

[996GT2]

I think my dream lens set starts with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

Well, not really "Dream" kit, but something I eventually want to own.

The Nikkor 17-55 is a good lens, but I don't think it's a very good lens for the price. I mean, IQ is good, but the much cheaper Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is just as sharp as the Nikkor (maybe even a little sharper) at 1/3 the price. The Nikkor does have SWM focusing, but it lacks image stabilization. So the only real advantages it has over the Tamron are better build quality and SWM focusing, but those aren't huge benefits considering you are paying 3x more for the Nikkor.

In my opinion, you should definitely make the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 part of your lens collection. At only ~$350, it will deliver primelike sharpness and colors. Focusing is a bit loud since it lacks SWM, but AF is quite fast nonetheless. Another benefit of the Tamron is that it actually starts noticeably wider than 17mm (it's probably 16.5mm on the wide end). This means you probably won't need a dedicated ultrawide unless you shoot a lot of architecture or landscapes.

Check out THIS very positive review of the Tamron 17-50. If you compare the image quality tests, you'll see that the Tamron is actually slightly sharper than the Nikkor 17-55.

So, what to do with the remaining $650?

If you shoot a lot of telephoto (e.g. birds), then the 70-300 VR for $400-500 is great. It offers ring SWM focusing that is very fast and very quiet. If you don't need the super fast AF, then the $200 Nikkor 55-200mm VR is another great lens for general telephoto shooting.

If you shoot a lot of portraiture, an 85mm f/1.8 at around $400-450 is also excellent.

With the Tamron 17-50, you probably will not need a fast prime like a 35 or 50mm f/1.8 anymore. My current kit consists of the 17-50 and a Canon 100mm f/2, and I find that's enough to cover all of my shooting needs. Add a telephoto like the 55-200 and you're pretty much set for any type of photography you are likely to encounter, be it landscapes, portraits, or general walkaround shooting.

Summary:

Tamron 17-50mm: $300-350
Nikon 55-200mm VR: $200 OR Nikon 70-300 VR: ~$400-500
Nikon 85mm f/1.8: $400

EDIT: Tamronrecently released a VC (image stabilized) version of the 17-50mm, the 17-50mm f/2.8 VC. This lens has a 3-4 stop image stabilizer combined with a fast f/2.8 aperture, making it a very attractive general walkaround option. It's a little on the expensive side at around $600, but that's to be expected since it is a new release.

 

[996GT2]

..

 

[Quasmo]

I think I'm set

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC $600
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 $200
Nikkor 55-200mm VR $170

I'll get a macro later on.

Thanks for the help.

 

[twistedlogic]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC $600
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 $200
Nikkor 55-200mm VR $170

Just a suggestion, I'd skip the 17-50 VC for the non-VC model and put the difference towards the 70-300 VR over the 55-200 VR.

Don't get me wrong the 55-200 is a nice little gem, but the construction/build quality of the 70-300 VR is worth the difference. On the other hand, IMO the 17-50 VC is not worth the extra $200 over the non-VC version, unless your shooting mostly low light static objects. VC will not stop moving objects, just camera shake, which isn't as prominent with such a short focal length as it is at higher focal lengths.

So I guess it all comes down to what your shooting so only you can make that choice. I just know my little one barely sits still long enough to snag a shot, so VR/VC would have no benefit(actually slow me down as you have to wait for VC to engage). But if your shooting landscapes/scenery w/o a tripod, VR/VC could really make a difference on the number of keepers.

What are you shooting?

 

[Quasmo]

Ordered the 70-300 VR
Going to get the 17-50 VC later next week.

Little over budget, but I think it's worth it.

 

[996GT2]

Ordered the 70-300 VR
Going to get the 17-50 VC later next week.

Little over budget, but I think it's worth it.

Nice choice. The VC version is more expensive but I think you'll like it a lot. I have the non-VC and it's the one lens that stays on my Canon 40D most of the time.

 

[Quasmo]

Taken tonight with the 35mm

 

[Tip3r]

LOL..I love the expression on the cat's face.
Nice choice. I envy you, I can never afford to spend $1000 at once on glass. Sounds like fun.

 

[shocksyde]

Let me know how you like that 17-50...

I have the 35 1.8 (<-- love it) and 55-200VR. 17-50 would be nice for a walk-around.

 

[speedy2]

I have the 17-50mm on my Canon Rebel XT and I really love it. I went through 3 other lenses before I stuck with it. It's my "all-around" lens and rarely comes off the camera.

 

[virtuamike]

I haven't shot with the Tamron or other 3rd party lenses, but the 17-55/2.8 is the one thing I really miss about switching to full frame. It's a great lens even wide open. There are plenty of people selling used 17-55's, can find them for around $800.

 

[randay]

snip
Taken tonight with the 35mm

man that wallpaper is nuts! great pic

 

[Hyperblaze]

I would not recommend the 18-200mm lens on anyone.

While you do get wide angle and a good zoom, the picture at 200mm will not be as sharp.

It sounds like the perfect lens, but there is no such thing as a magic lens.

I was going to buy it myself but ended up buying a 28-135mm lens instead. I was convinced by a guy who I consider a professional photographer.

 

[soydios]

I would not recommend the 18-200mm lens on anyone.

While you do get wide angle and a good zoom, the picture at 200mm will not be as sharp.

It sounds like the perfect lens, but there is no such thing as a magic lens.

I was going to buy it myself but ended up buying a 28-135mm lens instead. I was convinced by a guy who I consider a professional photographer.

The 18-200mm isn't a "photography" lens. It's a snapshot walk-about lens. I have one for just that, along with a 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 24-85/2.8-4.0, and 80-200/2.8 lenses for when I want better image quality. The 18-200 has distortion and chromatic aberration and softness at both ends of the zoom range, but the the key is that it GOES to those ends of the zoom range. There is no other lens that lets you be casually composing a shot at 24mm and then zoom in to 200mm for a close up with a roll of your fingers.

The 18-200mm is not a perfect lens. As you said, there is no such thing. Just be aware of what purpose it serves in your bag before buying it. It's the lens that I leave on my camera in my bag for grab-and-go snapshots.

 

[djnsmith7]

I really like the 70-300VR & I'm glad I bought it. You'll have a lot of fun & great results with that lense.

 

[funks]

I had a similar problem (Canon though - 1.6 crop factor), and basically - I reshuffled and went with the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 lens for my all-around lens. And will be buying myself a dedicated prime wide angle fast lens (around 24MM range) for taking pics at parties (lowlight, night) where I need something wider.

I'm not a baller hence I can't afford a FF camera (it'll take a while before Canon releases a Full Frame Digital Rebel, maybe in 3 years).

I've noticed that most of the pics I've taken are between the 28-75 range (family stuff).