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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2010, 10:56 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Yeah, I might go with that. But I'm still trying to cross my fingers that my husband will say go ahead and go with the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, . . . a girl can dream!
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 10:58 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Ok looking at the 18-55 mm lens, it does say this

"DX lenses are NOT recommended for use with "full-frame" digital or 35mm film SLR cameras"

Would that apply to the D90?
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 11:00 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

No the D90 is not full frame it is an APS-C camera like the k-x, t1i, t2i, 50d and d5000. So you are good to go, that lens will not work on a D700 and d3, Very Expensive cameras
__________________
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
Old Mar 31, 2010, 11:07 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Good, . . . yeah, if you are sinking that kinda money into your camera I certainly hope you wouldn't be limiting yourself to a 150 dollar lens. Thanks again!
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2010, 11:14 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Not a problem. Glad to help. And I have the canon 1.8 and recently pick up the 50mm 1.4. And there is a difference between the 100 prime and the 300 dollar prime. If you shoot them back to back. You would see that it is actually worth the extra. Before I got the 1.4 I did not really think it was that great of a difference. The 1.8 is a very good prime form the price. But the 1.4 is a very good prime period.
__________________
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
Old Apr 1, 2010, 3:34 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

It seems you're set on the D90, a not insubstantial investment all by itself, and pinching pennies with regard to lenses, and that's actually the opposite of the way I think money should be spent. I have the D90 and think it's a great camera. I have the Nikon 85/1.8, the 50/1.8 and a Tokina 100-300/4.0. I plan on getting more lenses as time goes by, but I never settled for any of my lenses, and I don't plan to settle for any lenses in the future. I'd rather see you get a less expensive camera body so you can get better lenses, than see you do what you've been talking about. Are you sure this is the road you want to take?
__________________
  • 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 Apr 1, 2010, 8:19 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 58
Default

I like shooting wide open (as wide as I can with my point and shoot that is) and I love pictures that are shot wide open as well, so that is why the 1.4 is appealing to me over the 1.8

I'm not set on penny pinching on the lenses at all, I want quality glass, I just want to somewhat figure out what two lenses I will get to start and get the least expensive one with the camera body. the Nikon 50 mm 1.8 would be an easy choice since I've heard it touted as a good lens and it is relatively inexpensive, but I wanted to know if there were other lenses that served different functions from the 1.8 that were equally good, as I was interested in the 50 mm 1.4. If the 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens isn't good glass, and would be a waste of money as far as getting quality shots goes and something I would want or need to replace later, then obviously I don't want to put money into that and would rather wait longer to purchase. So I'm not looking to penny pinch on the glass, just trying to be smart on it, I felt this way when I was looking into what the pentax lens options would be too. I don't want to spend 300 dollars on a lens if there is a 100 dollar lens that everyone knows is excellent quality with any camera I buy. I was more trying to soften the blow of the initial purchase. One thing I have going for me is that my husband says you never regret paying for quality, and ultimately I know we will go with whatever will get us there (quality), if it means buying this month or in 2 months, so in that way I do want to know if a lens I am mentioning "will do" but won't do much for me or my shots. Hope that makes sense.
las7828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2010, 11:34 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

There is no doubt in my mind that the 18-55 can get good shots, i dont have one, i have the 18-105, and it has produced some really good pictures. Just because it is a kit lens doesn't mean it doesn't have its up side too.

Jeff
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2010, 1:50 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The 18-55 is a good lens. It does produce nice images like the 18-105 actually they are not as wide as a prime, but very few long zooms below 800 dollars are wider then 3.5-5.6. If you like to shoot wide open, the best options would be primes. Lenses down the line you may want to look into are 28mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 1.8 or 105mm 2.8 macro. These are all the same build as the AF 50mm 1.4 with the faster AF systems. I am a prime shooter, and the 4 primes will cover most of the range you will need. And I have a 70-300mm when I need greater then 100mm of reach. The 70-200mm 2.8 is a 2500 dollar lens if you wanted a wide open zoom at 2.8 the whole way through with nikon, 900 with the sigma option of the 70-200mm 2.8 HSM OS. But shooting wide open is not an inexpensive path. Just so you know.

So if you pan on going this route, the canon t1i and t2i or d90 are the best choices.
__________________
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.

Last edited by shoturtle; Apr 1, 2010 at 5:24 PM. Reason: clearification
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2010, 2:07 PM   #30
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The 18-55 is a good lens. It does produce nice images like the 18-105 actually they are not as wide as a prime, but very few zooms below 800 dollars are wider then 3.5-5.6.
I wouldn't go quite that far.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 $450 or $650 with vibration compensation
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 $329
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 Optically Stabilized $450
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 $420
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 $570
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 $459

These are just the ones that pop into my head, there are potentially other bright lenses available in the sub $800 price range.
Mark1616 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 7:32 AM.