Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 31, 2010, 4:13 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Default Is the D90 really worth the extra $ over the D80 ?

I'm an enthusiast, not a pro or wedding photographer. I recently got a nice used D80 and put a 55-200 VR lens on it. It's a nice combo but I'm finding I need shorter than 55 so I'll be getting an 18-200 VR soon. This should make a very nice combo for most situations except distant wildlife shots.

So for an enthusiast who takes mostly outdoor photos of scenery, wildlife, and airplanes, is the D90 worth the extra money ? I rarely print a photo, mostly keep them on the computer or DVD.

Specifically, will the higher ISO of the D90 allow for better photos when using slower lenses like the 18-200 and 70-300 VR f/3.5-5.6 ?

Please tell me if I'm throwing good money after bad... if I should save my money for better glass.
Logo10heli is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 31, 2010, 4:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logo10heli View Post
I'm an enthusiast, not a pro or wedding photographer. I recently got a nice used D80 and put a 55-200 VR lens on it. It's a nice combo but I'm finding I need shorter than 55 so I'll be getting an 18-200 VR soon. This should make a very nice combo for most situations except distant wildlife shots.

So for an enthusiast who takes mostly outdoor photos of scenery, wildlife, and airplanes, is the D90 worth the extra money ? I rarely print a photo, mostly keep them on the computer or DVD.

Specifically, will the higher ISO of the D90 allow for better photos when using slower lenses like the 18-200 and 70-300 VR f/3.5-5.6 ?

Please tell me if I'm throwing good money after bad... if I should save my money for better glass.
While the 18-200 is good, unless you are specifically looking for a one lens solution, you'd be better off getting one of the mid range zooms. Sigma and tamron make 17-50 (approx) f 2.8 lenses which will give you better quality and be more versatile than the 18-200. They will also likely be cheaper, especially if you look used.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2010, 5:24 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

+1 on the 17-50s, unless looking for the one lens 'solution.' You will have the same coverage with the two lens.

D80 is a good camera and should serve you well. Use it until you think you have outgrown it then skip the D90 for one of the newer bodies.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2010, 7:11 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Default

Thank you both for the suggestions. I will investigate the 15-70 lens.
Logo10heli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2011, 12:08 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Istvan84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 156
Default

I have a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 HSM lens for my D90. Quality wise compared to my 18-105mm standard Nikon lens, it is MUCH better. The pictures are much sharper, nice colours etc.

The tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is also a good lens I've heard. There is a newer 17-50mm Sigma f2.8 as well, with OS (stabilizer) but it was like 400 dollars more when I bought it. And I know I'm pretty steady with my hands, especially with a 18-50 mm. So I went with that one, and I think it's a great lens! And it is also a macro lens, at 50mm i can basicly put the subject right infront of the lens and it will still focus =)
__________________
Best Regards,
http://www.fotoi.se
Istvan84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2011, 11:46 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Default

Thank you Istvan84 for your reply. I will look at the Sigma lens too.

Would this 17-50 Tamron be a good choice ?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...0mm_f_2_8.html

Last edited by Logo10heli; Jan 1, 2011 at 12:43 PM.
Logo10heli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2011, 9:53 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

The non VC version is better than the VC version from the reviews that I have read. I have the non VC version and without the motor as well. I find it to be a very good lens and that at that focal length VC not as critical to have. I have a 70-300 Tamron VC and the non VC and find at that focal range it makes a huge difference.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2011, 8:35 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 118
Default

Thanks for your input vIZnquest. It sounds like a good wide lens will be a valuable addition.
Logo10heli is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:59 PM.