D90 and new lens(es) choices

<p>I am a D90 owner. I still have my N90S and its Nikkor AF 70-210 4.5-5.6 and Nikkor AF 28-70 3.5-4.5 lenses. I am more a photo enthusiast who likes landscape and outdoor photography with some family-portrait photography, too. I'm looking for advice re: new lens(es). I probably will get the Nikon 50mm 1.8 for sharp, indoor ,close, family photos but realize with my current lenses I lose my wide angle, landscape photo capabilities. I don't see myself going real expensive on lenses and would not be enlarging beyond 16x20 or so and would appreciate some of your ideas.<br>

Is</p>

<p>If you feel that 28mm was wide enough for your landscape work, then I suggest to have a look at the 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX AF-S. A more expensive and wider choice would be the 16-85/3.5-5.6 DX VR AF-S (FOV of the 16mm is roughly the same as that for a 24mm on film). If you want to go really wide, consider the 12-24/4 DX (FOV equivalent to a 18-35 on film) - the lens is fairly expensive though. Another option to consider might be the 18-35/3.5-4.5 that would nicely complement the lenses you already have - it is also the only non-DX lens in my suggestions and hence would also work on your N90.</p>

<p>The 50 is good to have. As for the rest keep everything and consider expanding on a 12-24 the hole left between 24 and 28 is not that great, or if you like primes look for a used 20mm. BTW the 28-70 is very nice as a performer when stopped down from f8 to f16.</p>

<p>For your landscapes, the 18-55 VR gives you big bang for the buck and can be used on the N90 from 24mm onwards without vignetting. If money is of no concern then I would recommend the 20mm f2.8.</p>

<p>Look at the new 35mm, f/1.8 DX AF-S lens Nikon just announced at $200. I use a Sigma 30/1.4 but if the cheaper, lighter, and only slightly slower Nikon had been out I probably would have gone for it.</p>

<p>Take a look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8. I am really enjoying this zoom lens.</p>

<p>skip wilson . thanks for the advice. I gather it would make more sense to use my existing lenses and just fill the hole in at the low end or wide angle lens. Is the Nikon 18-55 VR that much better than the 18-70 which doesn't, I believe ,have VR and how much better and more expensive is the 16-85 VR Dieter mentioned? Am I better off perhaps getting the Nikon 18-200VR. I can see its versatility but have heard of variable performance outside of f8-11. Any opinions on the Tamron 18-270? Thanks again.</p>

 

<p>You're spot on with the 50/1.8 AF. Other inexpensive, awesome primes to consider are 24/2.8 AF, 35/2 AF and 85/1.8 AF. And of course the newly announced 35/1.8 DX. Unfortunately, to go wider than 24 without spending a lot you'll need an 18-xx zoom or a third-party zoom lens. If you are into video at all, consider a manual focus lens because they are better behaved with the quirky movie mode.</p>

<p>Check bythom.com for good reviews of the 18-55, 18-105, 16-85 and 18-200. Bottom line, get 16-85 if you can afford it and 18-105 if money is a concern. Skip the 18-200.</p>

<p>I have the 18-55 and it makes some great pictures. I also own the 50mm 1.8, which is fantastic for quality and low light performance. However, I would recommend the new 35mm DX lens that is coming out soon. The 50mm is very frustrating for indoor family shots as you have to back up to get anything more than a portrait.<br>

So for ~$350 I think the above will cover your wide angle concerns and your indoor concerns quite nicely. If you want to make it cheaper, go for the 50mm 1.8 for $100 less (but know that you'll be limited in confined spaces).<br>

The other benefit of the 18-55 is that it has the same filter size, 52mm, as the 50mm or 35mm.</p>

<p>The 18-55 (You don't even need the VR version) can be found dirt cheap. Its a fine lens, and will fill your hole under your now equivalent 42-105mm.<br /> +1 like Mauro said, for getting a 12-24 (I vote for the Tokina)<br>

I love my D90 and I am sure you will too.</p>

<p>thanks for your experienced responses. After looking at various sites and lens evals with the remarks here, it seems for the money and the best mid level quality, I will probably get the Nikon 16-85, keep my 28-70 and use my well=thought of 70-210 lense for the long end and have a low light prime 1.8 50, or the 1.8 35 lens if it turns out as good as its predecessor. I look forward to chatting with folks again. Skip Wilson </p>