Which Lenses To Keep

[mua_bao]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I have the Nikon D90 & these lenses:<br>

- 50mm f/1.4<br>

- 50mm f/1.8<br>

- 85mm f/1.8<br>

- 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II<br>

- 80-200 f/2.8 AF (no VR)<br>

What lenses would you get rid off & what would you add to cover a nice range?<br>

Thanks for your input.<br>

MB.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Can you comment on what you photograph, and under what sort of conditions? And ... do you have a budget in mind? The only thing duplicated here is the fast 50 - no need for the f/1.8, since you have the f/1.4 ... but the 1.8 isn't worth enough used to bother selling.<br /><br />The 18-200 is a very convenient travel lens, but it's slow. The 80-200 is terrific, but it's large, heavy, and doesn't have VR - so it's appropriate for a more narrow range of uses. A faster and/or wider wide angle lens might be appropriate (say, something in the 10 or 12mm to 20 or 24mm), but again this depends on what you shoot.</p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>I'd lose the 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 2.8 and get a 70-200 2.8 VR.</p>

[mua_bao]

<p>Thanks for the quick & helpful responses...<br />I photograph mostly family, kids, candids...some in low-light situation.<br />I don't have the budget for the 70-200 2.8VR yet & that's why I'm about to get the used 80-200mm 2.8 ($775).<br />I can sell the 50mm 1.8 for the same price I bought it for.<br />For some reasons, I prefer shooting portraits, head-shots with the 50mm f/1.4 over the 85mm. Is it because of my (lack of) techique? Maury: is there a reason you prefer the 85mm & 50mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f/1.4?<br />Btw, I'm a beginner...very new to photography.<br />Thanks again.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>I'd dump one of the 50s, that 18-200, and get a nice 12-24 zoom, and then maybe a 300. Then you're pretty well covered from 12-300mm.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>Just curious, are all of these (or any of t hese lenses) the DX type (ie, made for digital)?<br>

Does the D-90 have the same sensor format as the D-300?<br>

If so, when you mount a film lens, optically designed for 35mm film fram format, then you are not really getting the view angle of the focal length stamped on the lens. But you are getting the Focal Length X 1.5 . So a film lens like an 80-200 is going to render a picture having the optical perspective of a 120-300 zoom.</p>

<p>I mention this cause working focal length seems to be part of your decision process.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Alan - whether the lens is DX or not makes no difference to the scale factor for focal length caused by a DX sensor: a 35mm f/1.8 DX has the equivalent field of view of a 35 x 1.5 = (roughly) 50mm lens on an FX camera, and an 50mm f/1.8 FX lens used on a DX body has the equivalent field of view of an 50 x 1.5 = 75mm lens used on an FX body. (And, for that matter, a 35mm f/2 FX lens gives the same field of view as a 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, on a DX camera. The only difference is that if you put the DX lens on an FX/film camera, only the middle of the frame gets any light.) None of this matters unless you're used to thinking in terms of what a given lens would do on an FX or film camera and are switching to using a DX body - a 50mm lens is still 50% longer than a 35mm lens, no matter what body you put it on.<br />

<br />

Mua - the answer is that it depends what you want to do. You probably don't need to cover every focal length in the range (which is why some are suggesting getting rid of the 18-200), but there's no doubt that it's a useful do-it-all lens to keep on the camera when walking around - although it's not a low-light lens. The obvious "waste" are the two 50mm lenses, but which one you get rid of depends on whether you want the larger aperture or whether you want the money for something else. Given that you have 80-200 covered, if you're worried about light, you could consider a faster, wider zoom to replace the 18-200, or just get a wider prime (e.g. 35mm f/1.8 DX) or an ultrawide zoom - but it depends how much you find you want to go wider than your current 18mm end. Equally, if you hit the 200mm end a lot, think about a 70-300 or 55-300.<br />

<br />

As for preferring 50mm, I wouldn't feel bad about that. On DX, a 50mm is a little wider than usual for a headshot, but not by much - you might be close enough that you're making someone's nose look a little bigger than usual, but not extremely so. 85mm on DX is the longer end of the portrait range, especially indoors, and it'll be harder to hold steady than the 50mm. If you like to get a bit closer or get a bit more surroundings in the photo than the 85mm allows you, don't feel you're doing something wrong just because someone might have called 85mm a "portrait lens" (it's actually a slightly wide portrait length on an FX body, but only slightly longer than you get from using your 50mm on DX). Besides, the wider aperture of the 50mm f/1.4 helps give you a narrower depth of field, and the bokeh of the f/1.4 (especially if you have the AF-D) might be nicer than the f/1.8 lenses.<br />

<br />

My $.02. I hope that helps - good luck with your Nikon Acquisition Syndrome!</p>

[mua_bao]

<p>Thanks Andrew for your very helpful response. I'd wanted to sell the 50mm f/1.8 for certain but not sure about the 18-200mm, thinking that I perhaps I should keep it for walk-around situations.<br>

As for the 50mm f/1.4 & 85mm f/1.8 I'm planning to keep both & use the former for indoors (tight places). I also made the stupid mistaking of buying the CPL filter for the 50mm instead of 85mm. Now I have to return it.<br>

I see myself getting a wide-angle & I'll be done with it...until I <em>need</em> another lens again.<br>

MB</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Mua -</p>

<p>Based on your last post, I'd think that the 35mm f/1.8DX is your most cost effective solution. Wider than the 50mm with a fast f/1.8 aperture for low light. It's a great lens for a D90 and I think you will likely keep it on your camera more than the 50mm, (except when shooting portraits).</p>

<p>Personally, the only reason I sold my copy of this lens is because I moved from DX to FX and subsequently purchased a 35mm f/1.4G to go with it. (I'll be throwing a review up sometime soon.)</p>

<p>Good luck with whatever you choose...and welcome to Photo.net</p>

<p>RS</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mua, a bit a different take on it maybe....<br>

You at some point bought these lenses thinking they would benefit you. Whether they do, only you can really decide. Are there specific reasons to want to get rid of them, or specific reasons to want to replace one or more of them? Specific reasons to wanting to add something? These are the questions only you can answer, and they should be the first questions really.</p>

<p>For example, something you could answer for you; the 80-200. It's a seriously good lens. It's also quite big and heavy, and for example, in my hands it saw relatively little use for that reason. Which brings up the question: do you normally want to carry around the 1.2kg lens? If yes, then the 18-200 can be replaced with something nicer/better going from 17 till ~50. If not, the 18-200 remains a very useful versatile tool (and I think there is fairly little reason to upgrade for most people to the 70-200VR, given the massive price difference).<br>

In short, it really depends on your usage which lens makes sense and which not.</p>

<p>The only serious double is the 50mm, I'd keep the f/1.4, certainly if you can sell the f/1.8 with no loss. That's an easy call.<br>

For all the other stuff, I would advice to check your own photos, see which lenses you do use most, which focal lengths really matter to you, and from that derive what focal lengths your lenses need to cover. Next, consider how heavy you want your bag to be, and then draw a list for yourself of candidates. From that point on, you can benefit from experiences here and it will make discussion a lot more focussed on your real needs.</p>

<p>One word of "caution": with true wide angles (below 16mm on the D90), check before you invest. It may not be your cup of tea, and good creative use of ultra-wide angles is a lot harder, I think, than with many other lenses. They're not the cheapest lenses around, so it may be very worth checking first whether it's really something you like before investing.</p>

[jon_robert]

<p><br /> I also have the Nikon D90<br /> <br /> - 50mm f/1.4 Keep because it is worth more than the f1.8 And lets more light in if taking a photo in the dark. <br /> - 50mm f/1.8 Sell unless the bokeh is just unbelievably better than the 1.4<br /> <br /> - 85mm f/1.8 Sell unless you actually do portraits if not sell it.<br>

<br /> - 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Keep it is my favorite lens and stays on all the time<br /> - 80-200 f/2.8 AF (no VR) IF IT IS 2.8 through out the range then keep otherwise you can likely sell it unless you are loaded with money and don't care if it sits unused. 80mm is a lousy focal length to be caught with as your widest available on the camera.</p>

<p>Definitely add the Tokina 12-24mm. I did most of a wedding of 2500 shots with just this lens. It is awesome and I never leave home without it. It is great for indoor family gatherings etc. I Just love this lens.</p>

[mua_bao]

<p>Thank you all for your responses.<br />I've taken test shots with all the lenses & here're my observations (for now):<br />- Already put the 50mm f/1.8 up for sale; this was a no-brainer.<br />- I like the 80-200 so this is a keeper.<br />- Most likely will return the 85mm f/1.8 and will probably get the 16-35mm f/4 as I think that this is more useful.<br />- Still on the fence about the 18-200mm super-zoom. If the 17-35mm ends up a good walk-around lense then the 18-200mm will go.<br />What do you think? Does this plan sound foolish to you?<br />Btw, carbon-fiber tripods & sb-800 are on the way...I'm spending some serious $$ on this photog thing :-)</p>