Nikon D90 but need inputs regarding Nikkor Lenses.

[rohitn]

Hello All,

 

Really need your advise/inputs/share experience regarding Nikon Lenses there is so many to choose from (Just

Nikkor) Fish-Eye, Wide Angle, etc etc.

 

I like to take Landscape, Portrait, Sports and Wildlife photography hence for me it would be ideal to go with

Wide angle lens plus tele photo lens.

 

So what would be the best combination that you think of lens to go with Nikon D90? I know that standard 18-105mm

lens is more popular with D90.

 

However, I am thinking of either to go with 18-55 and 55-250/300 or 18-70mm & 70-300mm lens.

 

But there is new lens introduce 18-200mm by which you never need to change any lens. But the reviews over the net

I have seen was images loose sharpness over 135mm or not so stable.

 

Nevertheless, 18-70 & 70-300mm VR lens also has some drawbacks regarding sharpness.

 

Hence would you please help me and share your own personal/professional experience regarding lens especially that

you think would be best combination with D90.

 

Thanks a lot your inputs/experience.

 

Rohit

[eric_arnold]

16-85 vr +70-300 VR gives you the best combanation of versatility and performance in kit zoom lenses, if your budget allows. 18-70 is also good.

[heartyfisher]

16-85 is good for a general all purpose lens if you like the wide and normal range. If you like the longer end

then the 18-105 give you that little bit extra. It really depend on what you like to shoot.. I am weird.. I have

the 150mm F2.8 macro as my main lens.. nice of portraits and tele landscapes and of course macro.. if only it

came with VR sigh...

 

From what you say you like, I would get the 18-200 vr and play .. take lots of photos then you will know what you

REALLY Like then get the specialist lenses for your special interest. Like I did. Although the 18-200 VR is

silghtly soft(and I mean slight). The range will give you a chance to learn your preferences. The 18-200 should

work well with the video capability where the lack of super sharpness wont be a problem(lower resolution). Some

people say the 18-200 vr is soft but its really sharp. Its tons and way sharper than my old 28-200 tamron ant

that was good enough when I was using it. Its only not sharp if you pixel peep and compare it to the pro lenses

like the tele primes or the 70-200 VR which cost a zillion times more!

 

Some pictures with the 18-200 VR.

 

http://fc57.deviantart.com/fs14/i/2007/093/2/d/Runneth_Over_by_heartyfisher.jpg

 

http://fc96.deviantart.com/fs21/i/2007/249/e/1/New_Holland_Honeyeater_2_by_heartyfisher.jpg

 

http://fc67.deviantart.com/fs32/f/2008/222/f/7/f724e15d190fbf1479d388cf41aa7e1c.jpg

 

http://fc45.deviantart.com/fs22/i/2007/363/6/8/Damp_yellow_by_heartyfisher.jpg

 

http://fc74.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2007/363/c/2/Leura_Cascades_by_heartyfisher.jpg

[victorwei]

If money is no object and you want sharp images like a pro, then the 24-70mm f2.8G ED AF-S and 70-200mm f2.8G

ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor lenses ($1700 each) would be my dream combo. I also agree the 18-200 VR is decent (as I

have it) but it would not produce real professional-looking images like the other pair.

[angkordave]

I would not use the Nikon 18-200 for landscape; its useful and sharp'; but wide angle distortion is a problem

especially if you have a horizon line (or any other straight lines for that matter at the edge of the frame.

See image from 180-200 that illustrates this.

 

This is a common problem with wide angle zooms. The only wide lens that is dead on is Sigmas 12-24 which wont

take filters. If I want to get wide angle shots with spectacular skies I use a Sigma 10-20 with polorizer. it

does have a little distortion but its hardly noticeable.

 

If I am traveling light I take 'the Nikon 18-200 and the Sigma 10-20 witch would cover 99% of any landscape shots.

The Nikon 70-300 is a decent general purpose telephoto lens; but for wildlife you will need something longer and

faster.

[angkordave]

I would not use the Nikon 18-200 for landscape; its useful and sharp'; but wide angle distortion is a problem

especially if you have a horizon line (or any other straight lines for that matter at the edge of the frame.

 

See image from 18-200 that illustrates this.

 

This is a common problem with wide angle zooms. The only wide lens that is dead on is Sigmas 12-24 which wont

take filters. If I want to get wide angle shots with spectacular skies I use a Sigma 10-20 with polorizer. it

does have a little distortion but its hardly noticeable.

 

If I am traveling light I take 'the Nikon 18-200 and the Sigma 10-20 witch would cover 99% of any landscape shots.

The Nikon 70-300 is a decent general purpose telephoto lens; but for wildlife you will need something longer and

faster.<div></div>

[carl_becker2]

For landscape I would look at the 16-85mm zoom.

For portraits I would use a 50mm f1.8 or 85mm f1.8.

For sports I would look at a 80-200mm AF-S f2.8.

For large wildlife I would start with a 300mm f4.

For small wildlife (birds) I suggest a 500mm f4.

If you want to go wide pick one of the DX zooms that fits your needs.

[nitin_karkhanis]

I have an old 35-70 f2.8. Its very sharp and cheap (< $300 used). The limited range can be an issue though.

Perhaps you could start with a quality lens like that and then decide.

[kurt zhao]

From my experience, 16-85 VR and 70-300 VR will be a perfect combo and 18-105 VR will do most job if your budget is tight.

[phoenix_kiula]

To the original poster: I was in the same situation as you. First get 18-200mm VR and make sure you can take good

photographs with it. The "softness" etc that people speak of is baloney. There are award winning snaps taken with

this lens, you don't necessarily need the exalted "2.8". That's a nice to have, but that can come later when

you're so good with the 18-200 that you can discern marginal differences. If a stellar bokeh is really, really,

really important to you, learn Photoshop's "lens blur".

 

As for the recommendations of 16-85mm and such, read the analysis of Thom Hogan (bythom.com) -- I couldn't agree

more with this.

 

The more you read sites like these where there is a WHOLE RANGE of skills in the audience, you'll get more and

more confused. Macro lens? Tele lens? Wideangle lens? And so forth.

 

People seem to have different experiences. Don't waste your time. Go out there and shoot some stuff. Spend the

money on a good tripod, a good Flash, a good battery grip. The 18-200mm VR will suffice for your purposes. I've

seen such stunning shots from this lens that I decided to stick with it.

 

The real difference between me and the pros is the time of the day (lighting), the skills with using Flash that

is not harsh and tubelighty, the patience and time, the use of tripod, investment in fantastic travel guides, and

so on and so forth. We amateurs seem to think that if we spend on an expensive legend lens (e.g., 85mm f/1.4)

then somehow our photos will be stellar. Not so. No amount of expensive gear can make up for lousy technique and

impatience, while the good photographers produce some snazzy schtick with 100$ 50mm f/1.8 or the 18-200mm as well.

 

Good luck!

[rohitn]

Thanks everyone for response. I really appreciate your comments/experience.

[rohitn]

I don't know but the reviews regarding 18-200 varies as some people say its extremely good and some say its average or not sharpen enough when you go byound 135mm.

 

However I agree to fact that, its always good to used one lens only for the type of photography you would like to take e.g. wide angle, telephoto, and when these two types of lens introduced few month back, i am sure people will have some issues with the lens as it is new technology where you don't need to carry extra lens however, it will take time to nurture the technology.

 

Cheers,

 

Rohit