D90 or D300 and with what lenses?

[megan_hartley]

<p>Hey, so i've decided I either want a D90 or D300 when i upgrade i currently have the D60. I want lenses that I would be able to use for Live Music Events, Wedding and Portraits.<br>

Can you suggest whether i should get the D90 or D300?<br /> And what lenses with it?<br /> <br /> I have a limit of about £1700<br>

Thanks</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>D90 = $800 (US)<br>

Tamrom 17-50/2.8 VC = $600 or Nikon 17-55/2.8, $1200 (new) or $900 (used).<br>

One fast (f1.4) prime lens, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, or Nikon AFS 50/1.4 for $400. Don't waste money on slow kit lenses.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>D90, and free up as much as you can for lenses.<br>

The types of things you want to do all are served well with fast glass (I find "<em>don't waste money on slow kit lenses</em>" a rather blank silly statement - some of the kit lenses are quite excellent, but not for what you intend to do).<br>

For portraits, I would get a Nikon 85 f/1.8, though one catch is a very recently announced Sigma 85 f/1.4. No reviews and pricing yet, but if you can wait, I would. Or a 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8.<br>

For live music events, it depends on how close to the stage you can be. Either a 35 f/1.8 or Sigma 30 f/1.4 could be the deal, but a 70-200VR if you have to work from a distance.<br>

For weddings, depends whether you're going pro or not. Pro: Nikon 17-55 and 70-200VR and a couple of flashes, and that stretches the budget way over its limit. For more casual, only a 17-50 may well do. And a flash; get at least the SB600.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>that's about $2500 USD at current exchange rates. if your total budget was <em>at least</em> 2x the body cost, i'd say go for the D300. but with that budget, you're better off going for the d90 and spending the rest on fast glass.</p>

<p>for lenses, basically you need a wide 2.8 zoom and a long 2.8 zoom. the optimal setup would be a 17-55 and a 70-200 VR. since you dont have the budget for that, a tamron 17-50+sigma 50-150 would get the job done. you can get the pair for about $1300-$1400 USD, or less if you opt for the non-VC tamron.</p>

<p>that leaves just enough for a sb-600 flash + flash bracket and extra memory cards.</p>

<p>i wouldnt bother with the 30 and 50 primes until after you get your workhorse zooms. the 50/1.4 isnt the best portrait length on DX, and its range is duplicated by the 17-50. (i have the 17-50, the 50-150, the 30/1.4 and the 50/1.8, and do live music and events. i've found the nikon 50 is a bit soft wide open, so it's basically made redundant by the fast wide zoom, which is more versatile.) you could make a case for an 85/1.8 as a long portrait lens, but a long 2.8 zoom is better for weddings and live music.</p>

<p>basically the train of thought is get a basic kit which allows you to do what you want to do, then upgrade to a better/backup body and specialized lenses when you can afford it. it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to spend 2/3rds of your budget on a body and scrimp on lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>I agree with CC Chang. I would buy a D90, the Nikon 17-55 (new or used, I bought mine used from KEH.com and I can't tell a bit of difference from a new one.) and the Nikon 50mm 1.8 or Nikon 50mm 1.4. I prefer the Nikon fast primes over the Sigma's because they are lighter and smaller. If you want a fast telephoto, I would think about the Nikon 85 1.8 or If you buy the D90 and 17-55 used you could afford a used Nikon 80-200 2.8 also. There are a lot of options, but if you're wanting to shoot live music and weddings, don't settle for anything slower than 2.8. Keep in mind, the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is one of the cheapest and best lens out there. It would be easy to throw that lens into your collection for $100.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've owned the Nikon 85mm f1.8. While it might be a good portrait lens, I had a lot of trouble using it as a general purpose lens. I found it to flare very easily when a point of light was in the frame.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>I was using the D80 until a month ago when I borrowed a D90 and was blown away by the IQ and low light ability. I also liked its snappyier zooming and looking at images on the LCD. In the process of stalking a used D90 on c-list I ended up with a bargain priced D300... I couldn't be happier and would highly recommend the D300 over the D90. But not at any price. If you can't get a sub $1K D300 or you aren't interested in buying used go with the D90.</p>

<p>I don't believe the low light ability or IQ is any different between them (it should be the same) but I love the handling, viewfinder and hard button controls offered by the larger body. I also get to use my Ai lenses in A and M mode which is a plus for me. The 100% viewfinder is really fantastic....</p>

<p>As far as lenses I got to shoot informally at two live music events last week by chance with the D300. Nothing spectacular but I really enjoyed using my 85/2 Ai. On the crop body I felt like it allowed me to single out just the right parts of the action. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonydefilippo/tags/concert/">If your interested check them out on flickr here.</a></p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Hello Megan,</p>

<p>The Nikon D90 should serve you quite well for the venues you describe. For lenses, I recommend:</p>

<p>Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR version one or II.</p>

<p>If you have any money left over:</p>

<p>Nikon 17-55mm f2.8</p>

<p>That should cover your needs, and depending upon your photographic ability, provide you with superb results.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i will vote also for the D90, tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (doesn't have to be VC) or a sigma 18-50mm f/2.8) and the sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. this is the budget combo that will get you going for a long time and will answer all your demands.<br>

you can have the wedding team of the D90 with the tamron 17-50mm or the sigma 18-50mm and the D60 with the sigma 50-150mm....................both good for live events and portraits, too.</p>

[alfredo orihuela]

<p>Everyone is right on this forum. Having said that. The d90 is an amateur camera, not sealed properly for gigs like your describing, in my opinion. The d300 is not a pro camera... but it is. All aspects of the d300 are the business, all of which, one can experience every time you shoot with it. Now... I see no reason to pay for it brand new. you see, it is such a robust and durable camera that you can trust the well being of a good condition second hand. so that might be something to consider. In other with lenses, well, how many times you want to be changing lenses in a smoky humid gig??? thats right. NONE. so, find your length and make the best of it. forget dx lenses mate, is not the way to go. 1700£ right? this is what i would do. Find a trust wordy dealer and get a D300 for maybe 700. leaves you 1000 leverage to get the one lens mate. 12-24 2.8? 24 1.8 sigma? ...<br>

Good luck to you mate. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>uh, alfredo, your enthusiasm is infectious, but there's no 12-24/2.8 so to speak of.</p>