Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   D90 Lens Recommendation (Have 35mm 1.8G and 18-200mm) (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/d90-lens-recommendation-have-35mm-1-8g-18-200mm-201551/)

razzbaronz Sep 11, 2012 10:44 AM

D90 Lens Recommendation (Have 35mm 1.8G and 18-200mm)
 
Hi!

I was originally going to upgrade my camera but may want to buy a few lenses first and see what shakes out with the new announcements. A small part of me considering going to FX if the price is right but it probably won't happen for at least 2 years at this point.

I currently have a Nikon D90 and the lenses I use are the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G (love this one) and the Nikon 18-200 VR II (for travel or wide angle group shots). Also have a nifty fifty (f/1.8) but don't use it much on this DX sensor. I'm thinking of buying a new lens and would like some advice as to what would be good for me.

Here are some I am considering:
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8: this will help transition me to FX if I get there, but may not be wide enough for now (I can buy this for about $330 near me)
Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 D AF: transition to FX, 20mm should be wide enough, but a lot more expensive (looks like $450-500 on ebay if Iím lucky)
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF: Wide, but a DX lens so I'm stuck in DX land (About $250)
Nikkor AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D: Cheap but worth it? I have access to a kit 18-55mm when I need it.

Any advice would be very helpful. Thank you!

TCav Sep 11, 2012 11:25 AM

Since you're considering the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (The unstabilized version is excellent, btw. The stabilized version, not so much.) you might want to also look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Also, preliminary reports are that the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is very good and it's stabilized. BTW, in the event that you lose your mind entirely, those two Tamrons are 'Full Frame' lenses as well.

razzbaronz Sep 11, 2012 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCav (Post 1318048)
Since you're considering the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (The unstabilized version is excellent, btw. The stabilized version, not so much.) you might want to also look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Also, preliminary reports are that the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC is very good and it's stabilized. BTW, in the event that you lose your mind entirely, those two Tamrons are 'Full Frame' lenses as well.

Lose my mind as in go FX? I'm probably sticking with my D90 for a few more years honestly, you're right.

The issue with the 24-28mm lenses is that I have the 35mm prime already, I think the 17mm will be a huge difference but the 24-28mm maybe not so much. I'm leaning towards either buying nothing, the 17-50, or a 28mm 2.8 prime for cheap if I can find it.

Boy is that 24-70 expensive! I don't think I can justify paying 1k+ on that lens over the 17-50, for example. Is it that huge a difference?

TCav Sep 11, 2012 12:41 PM

Another option is the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 OS.

banksy Sep 11, 2012 6:18 PM

To stick my oar in, my husband has a D90 with a Tokina 16-85 which is a great walkaround and travel lens. I also have the same for my D7000 and it is a quality and useful lens. Good luck (lens decisions are never easy).

zig-123 Sep 12, 2012 4:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razzbaronz (Post 1318036)
Hi!

I currently have a Nikon D90 and the lenses I use are the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G (love this one) and the Nikon 18-200 VR II (for travel or wide angle group shots). Also have a nifty fifty (f/1.8) but don't use it much on this DX sensor. I'm thinking of buying a new lens and would like some advice as to what would be good for me.

Here are some I am considering:
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8: this will help transition me to FX if I get there, but may not be wide enough for now (I can buy this for about $330 near me)
Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 D AF: transition to FX, 20mm should be wide enough, but a lot more expensive (looks like $450-500 on ebay if Iím lucky)
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF: Wide, but a DX lens so I'm stuck in DX land (About $250)
Nikkor AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D: Cheap but worth it? I have access to a kit 18-55mm when I need it.

Any advice would be very helpful. Thank you!

Hi,

Of all the lenses you've listed, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 would give you the most bang for the buck. It offers a good focal range for every day shooting, is sharp throughout the focal range, AF is fast and it's not expensive. The other 3 Nikkor's mentioned won't add as much to what you already have.

FWIW: I use a D7000. My 3 principal lenses are the Tokina 11-16mm , Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (non-stabilized version) and the 70-200mm f.2-8 VR1. The 17-50mm is the lens I use for almost all my photographs aside from sports or wildlife when the 70-200mm takes over.

The 11-16mm pretty much sits in the bag as I tend to use the 17-50mm for wide angle photography by panning the landscape, taking a series of images and then stitching them together in CS6.

By they way, whatever used lenses you buy today won't preclude you to go to FX at some point in the future as most lenses hold their value far longer than camera bodies and can be sold for close to what you paid for them.


Zig

shutterbug1076 Sep 17, 2012 10:09 PM

17-50 f2.8 non stabilized...I love mine...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:21 PM.