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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 22, 2010, 2:25 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3
Default Nikon D90 Newbie. Now to buy an all around lens.

yes, going to take this dead horse and beat it some more. But this time its for a different reason.
I have read the previous posts about the super zoom lenses. The Nikon vs the Tamron. The image quality vs what you want. However nothing was mentioned about the speed of the auto focus.
I received the D90 as a gift. Body only, no lens. I was looking into the Cannon 7d with the 8fps, but I recieved the D90 with only 4.5fps so I am greatful for the gift and Ill have to work with that.
I will use it for a all around lens, chances are its going to be on the camera 90% of the time. I will take outdoor, indoor, sunlight and lowlight outdoors.
However. about 30% of the pictures is going to be fast moving subjects. F1 Racing, Redbull AirRaces, Air Shows, College football games in day and in night from the field, Horse Racing, baseball. Action shots. I rarely blow up any pictures, but I think with a new camera and lens I might start taking some pictures and blow them up, but for now its hard to say. But I would like to have that option.
So my question would surround the Auto Focus and tracking for both Nikon 18-200 VRII and the Tamron Clan the 18-250, 18-270, 28-300.
I would love to have the reach for those really great shots, but what good is it if the camera cant focus or track a subject?
I read the Tamron really lags when auto focusing and the Nikon is much quicker to focus on a stationary subject. What about a moving object? Say at an Airshow and to zoom in on a F18 going 500mph and tracking it? Or at the RedBull Airaces when you try to focus in on a pylon waiting for the plane to zoom by.
Thank you in advance for your help.

Last edited by Javiair; Mar 22, 2010 at 2:30 PM.
Javiair is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 22, 2010, 2:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

None of the lenses you're looking at will be fast enough and/or long enough for sports/action/wildlife, and they also won't be fast enough for low light shooting. One of the great advantages of a dSLR is that you can use a lens that is appropriate for what you want to shoot, instead of having to make do with one lens for everything. In addition to getting better images from more specialized lenses, you may even save money.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 2:53 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3
Default

I know that they wont satisfy 100% of everything that I want. I wouldnt mind buying 2 lenses and whatever I want to shoot for the day. However with almost anything $$ is the issue. Again only about 30% of the time its going to be high speed shots. I have taken some pretty good pictures using a point and shoot camera (luck was involved) but I have missed a lot more than I would like thanks to that shutter lag on my Panasonic.
So on that note, what would you suggest? I like a wide range of shots. Static day/night. Action day/night. Long range, wide range. I realize I will have to sacrifice something. No one lens is perfect. But I would like to minimize what I would have to compromise. Again, what is the point of having a 300mm zoom but the lens cant track a fast moving subject. My Budget is about $900.
I know.. wish me luck.. but thats why I came here. If anyone could help me, its the wonderful people here on this forum
Javiair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 3:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

im thinkinga sigma 70-200?

and a nikkor 1.4x tele?

anyone else?


jeff
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 3:47 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Certainly a $900 budget would allow you to get two lenses. For example a used Tamron 18-250mm is selling for under $400. To me an 18-250mm lens makes sense for travel, and it is very high on the convenience scale, but when the light level falls that utility and convenience seem to disappear.

I have used the Nikon 18-200mm and the Tamron 18-250mm lenses. They have a place but they need good light.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 4:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

I would say that 300mm would be the bare minimum you should get for your sports/action shooting, but something that long and fast enough for shooting at night will blow your $900 budget several times over. To stay within your budget, I'd go with a longer lens before a faster lens, so I think the Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR would be a better choice than the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM, but it's your call. I'd also go with a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 for the normal stuff. It's not stabilized, but it's faster than Nikon's stabilized kit lenses, so it's better able to work in lower light.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 5:10 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

Removed by Mod.

Last edited by Mark1616; Mar 22, 2010 at 7:27 PM.
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 7:28 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Hi Jeff, sorry, we don't allow buying and selling on the site.

Thanks,

Mark
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 7:32 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Javier, it's a hard situation, as you've rightly pointed out quality and price go up with each other... problem is that price always seems to be the element that goes up the fastest!

I personally wouldn't go for a vast zoom range, you give up far too much in quality for the gained convenience. I would go kit lens and the Nikon 70-300. This still doesn't give low light work but you get better performance wit the 2 lens option.

If you want low light and are willing to forgo the reach then the 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma could be a very good option. I don't personally think the lens is sharp enough for use with a 1.4x TC.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2010, 8:46 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you were considering the tamron 18-250, I also look at the tamron 18-270 VC. Adding the image stab and a bit more reach. But it is not a fast focusing lens for action. It is about 550 right now. It is more of a travel lens. It is not that bad of a compromise it you want to convenience of a 1 lens option.

But I second Marks opinion that a 2 lens option is better for IQ
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle 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 11:13 PM.