Is the D90 18-105mm kit, 50mm, & Tokina 11-16mm a good combination ?

[gabi_bass]

 

 

<p>I have recently purchased the D90 18-105mm kit. I want to purchase a wide angle lens for sure and possibly a fixed portrait lens. I will be using my equipment to assist the photographer at church and for personal use.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 AT-X is my first choice. I probably can't be talked out of this one. ($599.90!)</p>

<p>My question is, do I need to buy the Nikon 50mm f/1.8d AF($124.95) to get better low light images if I already have that range in the 18-105mm? I'm also questioning my flash. Should I get the SB400 or 600 ? These are the basics I have purchased so far from B&H:</p>

<p>D90 kit with 18-105mm VR $1099.95<br>

SanDisk 8GB SDHC memory card $39.95<br>

Spare Battery $39.24<br>

Capture NX2 $ 123.95<br>

Op-Tech USA neoprene pouch $19.95<br>

RS-W1 Camera Strap $19.95<br>

(camera bag/purse is still up for debate)<br>

I also will be using ProPhoto Blog $279/BlueHost $85<br>

Feel free to suggest other items I will need...</p>

<p>Money is not really the issue because My Love (husband) gave me a budget of $4000 total for everything. I want to get quality equipment, not really into third party lenses, other than that Tokina listed up there ! <br>

Thanks for your suggestion and opinions in advance !</p>

 

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It's a GREAT choice.</p>

<p>However, if it were me I'd make two small adjustments. I'd get the 16-85 instead of the 18-105 (I won't buy a lens with a plastic mount no matter how good it is, and the 16-85 gets better reviews -- but it's more money). I'd agree on the Tokina. I have one and love it. Also either instead of or in addition to the 50mm f1.8 I'd get the 35mm f1.8 DX. It's more "normal" for DX (if you like "normal"... I do). </p>

<p>Also, I'd get an SB600 flash with that package, but you don't have to do it right away. Last thing... Post-processing software? Do you already have it? Lightroom or Aperture would be good for a start.</p>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>I agree on the Tokina 11-16. Excellent lens. When it comes to 50mm however, I would buy the f/1.4 AF-S. The f/1.8 is OK (I have it), but not more. The bokeh is questionable and manual focusing even more so. I would also consider a vertical grip, not only for vertical shots, but it makes the camera easier to hold if you are going to buy larger/heavier telephoto lenses later.<br>

8GB of memory sounds like a lot, but I would buy at least two cards. They are cheap, and you will never get stuck if a card is full, fails or you lose it.<br>

I find that I use the 85mm f/1.8 more than the 50mm, particularly for portraits. A 35mm f/1.8 plus the 85 would be ideal. A third alternative is the Tamron 60mm f/2.0 Macro. It's only a third of a stop slower than your planned 50mm, but the close-focusing capabilities makes it an extremely versatile lens, and it's very usable for portraits as well.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I have the Tokina 11-16 with a D90. Great choice. Do take care of that lens, though. A protective filter winds up hardly shaded by the (necessarily) shallow lens hood, and therefore adds quite a bit of flare. I use mine without a filter, and I've already managed to scratch the front element. I'm very careful, and I don't know how it happened.<br>

Definitely get the SB600 rather than the 400. If not, you will kick yourself the first time you take a shot in vertical orientation and need to bounce light off the ceiling. With the D90, you can also control the SB600 remotely when it's not on the camera. Can't do that with the SB400. I agree with Jorgen above to skip the 50mm f/1.8. His suggestion of a 35mm f/1.8 and an 85mm f/1.8 is excellent.<br>

I like your idea of using Capture NX2 for your post-processing. The interface takes a little getting used to, but it's a wonderful program. I got used to Photoshop, so I use both it and NX2, but I could do 99% of what I do (as a dedicated amateur) with just NX2.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If you are going to use a flash very much I suggest looking at the SB-600. Can you go to the local camera store and check out a Sigma 50mm f1.4. It reads as having very good bokeh. The 11-16mm is a very good lenses. If it meets your needs good for it. For event style shooting you maybe better off with a 17-55mm f2.8 type zoom, the Nikkor or Tamron get praise here but I have used neither. Do you have a tripod setup? A longer f2.8 zoom may also be handy.</p>

[gabi_bass]

<p>Peter - I was thinking the same thing about the plastic mount. I think I will send the 18-105mm back. What is your opinion about the 18-200 ?<br>

I was looking at Capture NX2...playing with the tutorials. I've never had any PP software, so I will be new to this part of photography. I want to shoot in raw then convert to jpeg. I am concentrating on good composition and good exposure. Unfortunately, I can't nail everything in-camera, so I will want to update other factors later.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p> i agree wholeheartedly with carl above, regarding a 17-50 or 17-55 f/2.8 lens. i predict that this will be the source of some coming challenges for your photography, once you get started in earnest. the 35 or 50 mm primes can help in low-light situations, but the zoom is far more versatile. also, definitely go for the higher-end flash. that's something you won't regret, either -- especially for bouncing and off-camera use. i also use NX2 for post processing, and if you shoot RAW and work at it, you'll find it's a tool that can do almost everything you need. finally, another +1 for the tripod suggestion -- and invest up-front, so you don't have to spend money twice. voice of experience talking here!<br>

besides that, be prepared to buckle down and just start learning the ins and outs of what you've got. plenty there in your bag to keep you busy for at least a year, shooting every day!</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I agree with what Carl and others wrote above. It is better to stick to faster glass because in a Church settings is not so fancy to use the flash. So apart the excellent Tokina 11-16 a 17-50(55) from Taron or Nikon is a excellent option. If you will find that you need a longer zoom, Sigma 50-150/2.8 could be considered as well. A faster prime is like the cherry from the cake's top: Sigma 30/1.4 and 50/1.4, Nikon 85/1.8(1.4) ar some very good possibilities.</p>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>My experience with the 18-200 is only so-so, but I know that there are people who never take that lens off the camera. I use the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 plus a Nikkor 70-300 (the latest version with VR is excellent) to cover that range. The Nikkor 16-85 is very nice too though, although somewhat expensive.</p>

<p>If you are looking for flash, I would go all the way to the SB900. You get more power (you can never have too much), and even more importantly: it recycles faster. Losing a great shot because the flash isn't ready is more than annoying.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I missed the thing about you assisting the photographer at church. Is this on a semi-pro or pro basis? If so... get a fast f2.8 zoom like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.</p>

<p>If it's decidedly amateur (nothing wrong with that), you might be better served with something more consumer that goes a little longer. The 18-200? Yes, I own one. It's a great vacation and travel lens, maybe the best. I bought it four years ago when you had to be lucky to find one new. I totally enjoy it, but do not think I would buy it today. I'd buy the 16-85 first, and if I were shooting a LOT indoors in a church (for weddings and such) I think I'd buy the Tamron 17-50. The nikkor 17-55 is nice, but so expensive.</p>

<p>I would not buy an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 unless and until I knew I really needed it. I work in a church and have seen dozens of photogs come through shooting weddings. Not one of them has used that lens. They all stick with the f2.8 zooms now. Literally every one I've seen come through (shooting DX--we're in the back of beyond and don't see much FX action in this town) is using a 17/18-50/55 from somebody (f2.8), and a longer zoom, usually 70-200. Many are using slower lenses, too. They are usually carrying primes alongside, and they NEVER use them. (which mystifies me, but their clients seem happy),</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 will be fun but all but useless for weddings.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I have the 12-24 Tokina and 18-200 Nikkor which I think is the perfect combo. The 12 -18 zoom is much more useful than the 11-16 in my opinion, tops out at a very useful 35mm equivalent rather than the too wide 24mm equivalent.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Wish I could edit. I meant go for the 11-16mm if it meets your needs.</p>

[flemming_nielsen]

<p>Congratulations on your purchase, Gabi.<br>

I'd say that Nikkor 50/1.8 is a no-brainer for low light portraits. Tack sharp and cheap! Buy and experiment - and sell it again - probably losing very little - if your needs turn out to justify the way more pricey 85mm.<br>

I love my 50 - and I don't want to distance myself more from the person, I portray. Different folks, different shooting styles. Question is: What's yours? And if you don't quite know yet - start out cheap to find out.<br>

I sure like the idea of a metal bayonet on my midrange zoom - but again consider your needs. Are you going to be that hard on your equipment?16-85 is close to three times the price of 18-105.<br>

I am considering wide angle options myself just now: Difficult choice between Nikkor 10-24 and Tokina 11-16, I think. Tokina offering better aperture and probably even sharper. But 10-24 makes for a more useful reportage range in my opinion - not "just" a specialty lens. And the colors, it renders, are more likely to look like your other (Nikon) lenses.<br>

Have fun deciding! And shooting...</p>

 

[munim]

Sell the 18-105 and get either one of both: Tamron 17-50 and Nikkor 16-85. I have both, but lately I've been gravitating

towards the 17-50 more and more for the bokeh. Can't blur the background enough on the Nikkor. On the other hand, the

Tamron is pretty useless for overhead shots: it doesn't autofocus well with the D90 live-view.

 

For UWA, I'm in the same boat as Flemming. Difficult to choose between Nikkor 10-24 and Tokina 11-16. The Tokina is

probably sharper but for wide angle, big aperture is not advantage, IMHO. The sweet spot for any lens is 1-2 stops from the

widest, but at f/5.6, the depth-of-field which is useful for landscapes can be quite narrow. YMMV.

[gabi_bass]

<p>Thanks so much for all the opinions and responses ! I am overloaded with options now..which isn't a bad thing. I believe in researching extensively before making an expensive decision (thanks to the training of my debt-free husband!)</p>

<p>Peter - I consider myself an enthusiast because this is not my primary means of support and I'm new to DSLR's....but I'm confident behind the camera and want quality products. Plastic mount lenses would probably not be a good idea for me. I'm careful, but heavy-handed, so I will use this in helping me decide what lens to purchase.</p>

<p>I would love to go all the way Nikon to satisfy my OCD-ism...For example, I would never wear a pair of Puma socks with a pair of Nike shoes, but that's just me.</p>

<p>I want the wide-angle for fun and to experiment with. I live in DFW, TX and there's plenty of space here to capture in a wide-angle lens. </p>

<p>I need an excellent portrait lens, whether it's a prime or zoom that will be used some for church, but mostly for friends, family & inside the house/low light conditions.</p>

<p>As far as the zoom is concerned, I'm not sure how much I need. I won't be doing any weddings anytime soon with my equipment. </p>

<p>So after all the opinions and comments, I may rent some lenses to experiment with to see what works best for me. I will make a final decision and post what I end up purchasing ! </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>instead of the 50mm, i'd get the 35mm and a dedicated portrait lens like the 85mm, tokina 90mm, 105mm or anything similar to your liking in the "true" portrait lens. </p>

<p>the 18-105 kit lens is very good even with plastic mount. the sb-600 is a lot better than the sb-400. the sb-900 will be overkill. get a long zoom instead...............you might not need a pouch, get a real camera bag.............................you might have too much software there :-)</p>

<p>congrats on having a very supportive hubby!</p>

[gabi_bass]

<p>Ramon - I have a decided on an over-sized leather purse already that my seamstress is making slots for like the epiphanie line ;o)<br>

Camera bags/backpacks are not for me. I've looked at Thinktank, Domke, lowepro, etc...They are so touristy looking. The new camera purses that are out on the market now are made with pleather/synthetic leather which I can't stand.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards the Nikons... 10-24 and/or 16-85, which if I get both is $1500 in lenses. But isn't that "overlapping" ? Only the 10-24 doesn't have VR.</p>

<p> So basically I'm still wondering what to get after the 10-24.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Gabi,</p>

<p>Overlapping is GOOD! It means it's less likely you'll need to do quite as many lens changes. So don't fret that. There are, btw, some very NON-touristy-looking bags out there.</p>

[gabi_bass]

<p>Peter - I've searched what I'm sure was the end of the internet and actually gone out to a very popular camera store, Arlington Camera, and looked at some of the bags. I did like the Domke, but ....and see, there can be no but when I buy something. I'm an all or nothing, chic shutterbug kinda girl. Is it wrong to look good while you're shooting ? ;o)<br>

You wouldn't believe how long it took me to decide between Canon and Nikon. (MONTHS!) <br>

I hate when I have money to burn and can't make a decision..and I definitely don't want to involve the husband..lol. he would tell me to get the kit lens, try it out...etc. But I believe it's a waste of my benjamins that could go towards something of better quality. <br>

So as of now, it's down to 2 lenses....and the only reasons I chose the 10-24 is because it's Nikon and that extra mm. The Tokina and Nikon lenses in that range are so close. Hmm....</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>how about the nikon 24-70mm complementing the 10-24mm? the 60-70mm range will be good for portraits. but nothing beats a prime for this purpose. you should have gotten just the D90 body without the kit lens. </p>

<p>the 16-85mm has more reach than the 24-70mm but the latter is better overall.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Gabi, good choice. 10-24 and 16-85, right? Go with it and see what happens later.</p>

<p>Ramon, for most of us the 24-70 is bad for DX, 24 is just not wide enough at the wide end. Awesome for FX, not for DX. It would also consume basically her whole lens budget.</p>

[gabi_bass]

<p>Ramon - My awesome husband bought the D90 Kit for me, otherwise I would have purchased the body only. </p>

<p>The 24-70 is $1600 ! I think I will probably stick with the 16-85 for $630. It's out-of-stock at B&H, so I will have to look around for it. It has good reviews and the price is much more feasible for my budget. I only have $4000 to spend and I want to keep some cash on-hand for any additional accessories I might need like filters, etc..</p>

<p>Right now, I don't think I will need/want one of those super zooms that go up to 200 or 300. </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>oh peter, it's just a thought since she's sold to the 10-24mm. i wouldn't buy the 24-70mm myself since it's not wide enough for me, plus too expensive also. i prefer my sigma 18-50mm.i would have suggested that together with the tamron 17-50mm but they are both non-nikon.</p>

<p>i'd like to see the capabilities of the 16-85mm in church functions and vents in low light because it surely is a nice focal range. during the season of lent in the christian catholic church, there are several festivities that flash is not allowed documenting such activities. if gabi's church functions are outside of this arena, a slower lens will surely be enough. in such affairs i use my D90 with the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8.</p>

[gabi_bass]

<p>Peter - I have decided on the 10-24 and the 16-85 Nikon lenses to start with. Who knows what I will bless myself with later !<br>

Ramon - I am Christian/Non-Denomination. We have a very laid back style to our services. Our photographer uses flash all the time for different kinds of events, so I won't have that to worry about. ;o)<br>

Lenses are like shoes, if you keep looking, you will find more glass to buy ! </p>

[james_kennedy9]

<p>The D90 is a wonderful camera and it mates very well with the SB-600. Your needs may dictate more power as with the SB-900, but don't go lower than the SB-600.</p>

<p>I will add one item that no one else mentioned. Reserve on the order of $20 and get a copy of "D90 for Dummies". You can buy it from Amazon and they often have used versions for less $$$. There are 3 or 4 other guidebooks for the D90, and I have most of them, but IMHO the "dummies" is the pick of the litter. Very good examples and illustrations, and as you are probably aware, operating a modern DSLR requires the equivalent of a degree in computer science. I actually have a degree in computer science, and I am not overstating the case. You will want to use the more professional modes, PSAM, and not the scenic "crutches".</p>

<p>Lots of folks seem to turn up their noses at Active-D lighting but I love it as a means to avoid burned out highlights. The D90 can perform wonders of in-camera after-the-shot processing, but these type of things are better done yourself in PP.</p>

<p>Best of luck and your husband deserves one helluva hug, and more.</p>