Advice on lenses for D90 for a non-Nikon user

[Laurie1]

<p>I have recently been given a D90 with Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses to try out. Mainly due to circumstances I have always used Canon equipment and my current gear is as follows.<br />Canon 550d<br />Tokina 11-16 Pro DX f2.8<br />Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5<br />Canon 70-200L f4 (non-is)<br />Canon 50mm f1.8<br />However after using the D90 for little while I am seriously considering changing to the Nikon (unfortunately I can't afford to keep both). I can replace both the Tokina and the Sigma with Nikon mount equivalents and there are quite a few options in the Nikkor range to replace the 50mm. However I am a bit stuck when it comes to the 70-200L f4. This is a wonderful lens to use it is probably my favourite as far as ease of use. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in the Nikon mount range. The closest I can find is the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED which, going by reviews, is a pretty well regarded lens. The Sigma "70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM" is probably getting a bit out of my price range and is also very heavy and the Tamron "70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF)" AF is a bit slow from what I have read. So is there a lens I have missed somewhere along the line?<br />I would also appreciate someone clarifying the differences in the lenses in the Nikkor range. The D90 has a built in AF motor I believe so will this work with all Nikkor lenses including those with their own AF motor?<br />Sorry for the long winded post. Thanks in advance.<br /><br />Regards<br />Laurie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Laurie,<br>

You're stumbling on one of Nikon's biggest gaps in the lenses they have: nothing similar to the Canon 70-200 f/4 indeed. There is no real alternative - it's either the Nikon 70-300VR/Tamron 70-300VC, with variable apertures, or the 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 lenses, which are much larger and heavier. You'd need to decide for yourself which compromise fits you best.</p>

<p>As for the compatibility, indeed the D90 is compatible with lenses marked as AF-D, AF or AF-S, which makes up nearly all AF lenses Nikon ever made.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Yup. That's a problem, and I wish they'd plug that hole. In the meantime I can attest that the Tamron 70-300 VC lens does very well on a D90, having used the combination myself. It's not good looking or anything and not built as well as an L lens, but it's very sharp and outperforms its price tag, and since you're adding 100mm at the long end and VC (which is Tamron for VR, which is Nikon for IS) it might be a reasonable tradeoff, compared to a non-IS 70-200/4.0 lens.</p>

<p>I can also tell you that the Sigma 17-70 is excellent on a D90. I used to use the same non-VR one you have. In 50mm I'd take a look at the newer 50/1.8G version from Nikon, which is a lot better than the 1.8D but more expensive. It adds AFS (which is Nikon for USM) and new optics that perform better wide open and give better bokeh. Also consider the Nikon 35mm 1.8G DX.</p>

<p>The D90 does have a motor and is fully compatible with any AF lens. The only compatibility it lacks is it doesn't have a mechanical coupler for the aperture ring on older manual focus lenses, so it can't use the meter with manual focus lenses. It can still use them, just without the meter. There are a few manual lenses it can meter with, but these are newer ones that have electronics in them.</p>

[Laurie1]

<p>Thanks Wouter and Andy for quick replies and all the information- much appreciated especially as Nikons are a whole new ball-game for me. Wouter, I will have to carefully consider the weight/Variable aperture tradeoff and off course cost. Andy, thanks for the recommendations - I will have a look at the Tamron and the primes too.<br>

Thanks both for clarifying the lens compatibility I understand it a lot better now.<br>

I also read (just after I posted in fact) that Tokina have announced a 70-200 f4 VR lens for Nikon though there is very little detail as yet and no release date mentioned. It might be one to keep an eye on depending on cost.</p>

<p>Thanks once again.<br>

Laurie</p>

[rjmelone]

<p>Hi Laurie, I am a D90 owner. The 55-200 lens that you already have is one the sharpess non-pro lenses on the market. Yes , its a slower lens when compared to the 70-200 f4 by Canon. But, I must ask you what your intended use is for this range in a lens (e.g. indoor sports)? Would it make sense to you to first try the 55-200 for a while and determine whether you need a faster lens? Best regards, Rob</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"nothing similar to the Canon 70-200 f/4" </em> There are numerous lenses that are somewhat similar. There are none that are the same.</p>

<p>For a few dollars more more than what you can sell your 70-200mm f4 for, you can upgrade to Nikon's 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens (used). I don't know if you have the budget for it, but if you do, it would be well worth the upgrade. This will easily become your favorite Nikon lens. Beautiful color and contrast, fast and accurate AF, VR fast aperture (numerous advantages)and beautiful out-of-focus areas really make this lens a winner! It will also hold its value well, as do most pro Nikon lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I would also like to see a 70-200 f4 lens for Nikon someday (although, to be honest, I'm happy enough with my 70-300 VR that I might not buy it even if I had the money), and believe that they will indeed plug that gap, as they have released f4 lenses in the 16-35 and 24-120 range (for FX) in the past couple years. This is perhaps the ONE lens that Nikon users most wish they had that Canon users have enjoyed for years.</p>

<p>That said, I can testify that the 70-300 VR is a GREAT match for that camera (I own that combo), and I can shoot all the way to ISO 1600 and sometimes even to 2000 with little image quality loss, as long as those images are viewed on-screen or printed under 8 x 10. I don't hesitate to go to ISO 3200 when I need to to get the shot, and those are usable on-screen or as 4 x 6 prints, much more than ISO 800 film used to be. Add the VR on the 70-300 to that, and the lens gets me by anytime I need to shoot with it. Indoors? Heck no, but it's too long for me indoors anyway.</p>

<p>The D90 will, indeed, work with any screwdrive AF lens, too. So that's one more thing not to worry about.</p>

<p>btw, keep the 18-55. It's a GREAT little walk-around-outside lens for when you want to be super-portable.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>To be fair, Nikon <i>did</i> make a 70-210mm f/4 AF lens for a bit (replaced by the f/4-5.6). I've never seen one, and I'd not make any claims about it keeping up with what is generally considered to be one of Canon's best lenses (and that's before we talk about autofocus speed - it won't have been quick), but it existed.<br />

<br />

The Tokina news is interesting, though. I recently got an 80-200 f/2.8 (which I may regret if I switch from D700 to D800, I'm not sure it'll keep up like a 70-200 VR2 would since there's a definite - if slight - performance advantage to the 70-200 even on the D700) but if it reviews well, I'm not against having a smaller option. Currently I rely on my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 for outdoor small aperture wandering around, but if <i>that</i> struggles on a D800 (that lens is modern, but ambitious and cheap, which is rarely a good combination) I might be hunting for alternatives.<br />

<br />

Bear in mind that, for a DX camera, the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR is pretty good. (The corners are iffy on FX, hence the VR 2, but that's not a D90 problem.) Just in case you come into some money!</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>I would be careful of the 80-200 AF-D 2.8 (2 ring) on the D90, in case you are looking at that one. I had one and found the same as the people who complained on flickr about severe front/back focus on the D90 with this lens. It was sharp but I couldn't get the damn thing to focus right. I swapped for a 70-300 VR which is nowhere near as sharp but at least focusses where I point it!</p>

[purplealien]

<p>Nikon used to make a consumer 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF zoom (for film, so full frame). You can pick them up second hand for very reasonable prices. </p>

<p>I have one from my film days and it works fine on my D90. </p>

<p>There is also a slightly younger version the Nikkor 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF-D. The "D" version communicates focussing distance to the camera for improved flash and metering performance.</p>

<p>Chris</p><div></div>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Andrew Garrard mentions the 'old' Nikon 70-210 f4 constant.</p>

<p>I have two and have used them for many years for film and digital (D70s and D700). Very good performer in image terms, but not very quick to focus. They were only made for about 18 months around 1987. They appear on UK ebay fairly often. I don't know about elsewhere. There have certainly been 'pleas' that Nikon should produce an updated version, but they have fallen on deaf ears.</p>

<p>Well worth trying if you can find one.</p>

[Laurie1]

<p>Thanks to everyone for your knowledge and considered opinions - much appreciated. You have given me a wealth of information to chew over.<br>

Rob, I mainly shoot out of doors so the larger 2.8f is not essential, it is more the constant aperture I find useful. And you are right it would pay for me to try the 55-200. I checked it's review on PhotoZone and was pleasantly surprised to find it a very good lens for it's category; as you say.<br>

Elliot, even second hand the 2.8 is probably a stretch for my budget (and also dependant on what I get for the Canon lenses) and also I would need to consider the weight - though if money was no object!<br>

Thanks Peter I will check out the 70-300VR too.<br>

Chris, thanks for the info. It seems to bear out what I have read in a few places that they are a good lens as long as you get a good copy.<br>

Andrew, Chris and Mervyn, the second-hand market here in Australia isn't very extensive but it's worth a look. I also keep an eye on USEbay and KEH now I know what to look for.<br>

Thanks to you all once again<br />Laurie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Laurie: Good luck. And for what it's worth, my 80-200 was bought used in Australia (in Camera-Electronic, I think they're called, in Perth); that's much easier than the UK because the 80-200 is, for some reason, not sold in the UK. I'll admit that Australian prices aren't what you might hope, given the proximity to countries of manufacture, though. :-)</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>Hello Laurie,</p>

<p>This is the same tight spot a lot of serious amateurs have with Nikon: the lack of f/4 lenses compared to Canon. However, it's encouraging to see that Nikon released the 16-35 f/4 VR and the 24-120 f/4 VR back in 2010, and something tells me if there was no earthquake/tsunami in Japan and no major flooding in Thailand we probably would have seen some kind of 70-200 f/4 by now. But that's all speculation.</p>

<p>The 80-200 f/2.8 is a great lens that can get an extra stop of light, and on the used market you can probably find one for under $1000...maybe even close to the price of the Canon 70-200 f/4 you have now. The 70-210 f/4 that others have mentioned is an option, and these are out there ok CL or EB for around $200. In either case, AF speed will suffer. If you are willing to spend around $1500 you can probably find a 70-200 f/2.8 VR I used. I had that lens and used it with a D90...the combination was amazing.</p>

[mark_mitchell5]

<p>Hi Laurie, actually, If I'm not mistaken, Tokina is suppose to come out with a 70-200 F4, but when, I don't know. But don't let that stop you, if you decide to wait on that lens, ok, if you can afford an 80-200 2.8/70-200 2.8 Nikon, that would certainly be a good option, but don't ignore the cheap 55-200 plastic lens. It's not built well, but it's optics are actually nice. My suggestion is to work with the two lenses, see where your work is being limited by what you have, and research and make your purchases from there.</p>

<p>D90, 55-200 Nikon kit lens.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I also read (just after I posted in fact) that Tokina have announced a 70-200 f4 VR lens for Nikon though there is very little detail as yet and no release date mentioned. It might be one to keep an eye on depending on cost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>tokina may have announced it but i wouldnt get my hopes up until an actual release...</p>

[Laurie1]

<p>Thanks for the additional info guys.<br />Andrew, thanks for the tip, I live in Perth so I will look them up.<br />KJ, the 80-200 f/2.8 sounds promising (though I am confused that there seems to be two versions. One with a sliding zoom ring and the other with separate zoom and focus rings and there doesn't seem to be a difference in their designations). The 70-200 f2.8 is just going to be too expensive for me for the foreseeable future.<br />Thanks for the image Mark - nice. That lens is certainly value for money and if I keep the D90 I will keep hold of it. I can always upgrade sometime in the future. <br />Yep, not holding my breath Eric :), I know it can be a long time between a mock-up and the real thing though I do like Tokina lenses. No hurry I have the kit lens.<br />cheers,<br />Laurie</p>