zoom for street photography on D90

<p>Hi. I have this question about a zoom for street photography. I have a D90 and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I like this lens and it' s very flexible for street photography. But I come from 35mm film, and my 2 preferred focal lenghts on film were 35 for scenes and subjects in the enviroment, and 85 or 105 for candid portraits. So, I find the tamron 17-50 ( 25- 75 on corresponding 35mm) very usefull on the short end, but a little short on the long end. I woul like your suggestion about a longer zoom. What about the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4 ? It may be ideal for my needs, as I could have 24 (35mm on film) and 85 (105 on film). At the long end it's only f4, the tamron is 2.8, what about this stop difference in order to have blurried background on portraits ? An alternative could be the good tamron 28-75 2.8, but 28 is too long at the short end for my needs. The ideal would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8, but is way too expansive for my budget. Can you suggest me any alternative ? I want buy only FX lenses, as I think in a year I will upgrade to D700, so, please, no suggestions about dx lenses. Thank you. Ciao. Marco</p>

There's a Sigma 24-70/2.8 that's pretty good and the newer Nikon 24-120/4.0 but they're both more expensive than

the lenses you've mentioned. I have the Tamron 28-75 and use it on my D90 and F100, and it's quite good especially

at f/4.0 where it becomes very sharp. (It's a touch soft at 2.8, but that's true of all the 2.8 normal zooms I've seen.)

<p>I think the old Nikkor 18-70 would be great for this. f3.5 to f4.5. small and easy to carry, too. I wouldn't want a big heavy lens for street photography.</p>

<p>If you only "think" you're going FX "in a year", I think you still ought to look at the 16-85mm lens (<a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2178/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-16-85mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html">link</a>), but you said no...<br>

but the 24-85 is not a VR lens, is it? I personally would not buy a new lens without that feature if there were anyway to get the VR. IMO it's worth whatever it costs.</p>

<p>Unless you're planning for the lens to be used dual-duty on both FX and DX, I'd say buy the lens you want for the format you want when you need it. You could buy a used DX lens today and lose relatively little selling it a year from now if you actually do pull the trigger on an FX body. If that Nikkor 24-70 is not in the budget now, will the D700 be next year? Would you be better off with better glass on a APS-C body? You might even get a better image from a 24-70/2.8 on a D7000 than a 28-105/3.5-4.5 D on a D700.</p>

<p>All said, you're probably right that the standard zoom starting at 24mm is the best choice for double-duty on both DX and FX bodies. You might also consider the new 24-120/4 VR but it's more expensive and probably no better optically...but does provide stabilization, and you might appreciate the longer reach on FX.</p>

<p>Maybe also consider the discontinued 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S. More compact (67mm filters rather than 72mm)/lighter with quieter focusing, only 1/3 stop slower at the long end (2/3 at the short end).</p>

<p>You're not generally going to find autofocus standard zooms longer than 70-75mm faster than f/4 or f/4.5. Keep in mind that you can isolate subject from background by shooting longer glass and managing camera-subject vs. subject-background distance as well, also switching to larger FX sensor.</p>

<p>hi marco, i used the tamron 17-50 for about 3 years. to me it's a great street photography lens. yes, it can be a little short on the wide end. i also have the 18-70 and the 28-75.</p>

<p>'the DX now, FX later' mantra always makes things a little tricky. on one hand, it's good to prepare by getting appropriate lenses early. on the other hand, you may not be filling immediate needs.</p>

<p>i'd consider the nikon 28-105, and the 24-120/4 VR along with the 24-85. either of those three could be what you're looking for. at some point you just have to accept that no lens "does it all." another option is getting a longish prime, like the 85/1.8 or 85/1.4. you could also check out the voigtlander 58/1.4, which would be close to 85 on DX and potentially still useful on FX, albeit less so. since the 17-50 isnt much bigger than a prime, you could probably make do with a 2-lens setup.</p>

<p>the 24-120 probably fits the bill the closest in terms of usefulness on both FX and DX, but its also the most expensive.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the best idea is to buy the lens that meets your current needs. If it is the 24-85mm then go for it. You may very well find you will still need to change your lens kit after moving to FX. I did. Of course the 24-120mm has a lot of range and may just do both formats for you.</p>

<p>Marco, I like the 18-70 for general use. Light, moderate size, AFS, excellent image quality, equiv to 28-105mm coverage. </p>

<p>Maybe the Sigma 17-70 OS could also be a competitor , anyways it seems to have the reach youre looking for...<br>

On lenstip they spend a few pages on it... :<br>

<a href="http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=223">http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=223</a></p>

<p>I fully agree with the idea of buying lenses for the camera you have. If you buy used ones, you simply resell later and get your money back out of it. One other idea I'll toss out is that the D7000 has image quality and low light capability very close to D700. I really doubt you could tell the difference, especially if not using a tripod. The D7000 has an advantage in that it is smaller and attracts less attention. For it, the 16-85 VR would be an excellent match. Camera is available now, no need to wait a year.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have the 24-85 and use it on a D90...if you're interested I'd be willing to sell it.</p>

<p>I have the Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-f/4. It works on both DX and FX. The range is actually very good on a DX camera. Focus is fairly fast for a screw AF lens. The lens also has a macro mode that goes to 1:2 that can be very useful.</p>

<p>Is f/4 enough to get a good out of focus background? Decide for yourself, I've attached an image shot at 70mm f/4 with the 24-85 f/2.8-f/4 on a DX camera.</p>

<p>My personal preference would be to shoot with two primes instead of a zoom, a 35mm and 85mm on FX or equivalent focal lengths on DX.</p><div></div>

<p>If you could find the discontinued Nikkor AF 28-200 G, that is small and light, FX coverage, and only extends when at tele setting. With 200 mm reach you will have chance to shoot unsuspecting subjects from a distance. The new 28-300 FX AF_S lens would be even better but much more expensive.<br>

Long distance from the subject will be less intrusive, and will give you more of head start time and distance in case you need it. All depends where and whom do you intend to shoot on streets.</p>