Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 3, 2009, 8:57 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 13
Default

Hi Guys,

I'm planning to get a D90 or D300 next month. I'm thinking of getting body only then probably 2 lenses.

I will be taking photos of nature/sceneries and portrait. Any recommendation as to what lens to get?


daemonjin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 3, 2009, 9:53 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

For portraits, you might want a large aperture so you can get a shallow depth of field. Nikon's AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-EDis very nice, and it's stabilized as well. In fact, it's the only stabilized macro lens available anywhere.

"Nature usually means long lenses, but "Sceneries" usually means wide lenses. Can you narrow this down a little?
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 10:12 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 13
Default

AHA! I think my you should make that Sceneries. Hehe.. I understand that Nature could mean animals. xD I stand corrected... Thanks TCav.

So to make things clear, I want to shoot Sceneries (ie. Mountains, Fields, Buildings, etc.) and portraits (human subjects lol).

Btw, I love natural light; I don't like artificial light. xD


daemonjin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 12:11 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VRis nice but it has some distortion throughout its zoom range and the vignetting at the wide end is pretty bad. And it's not very apporpriate for natural light.

The AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-EDis better but it's exepnsive.

For wide-to-normal fast zooms, a very good choice is the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF). It's sharp, fast, and costs a lot less than the Nikkor equivalents. I have one and am very pleased with it.

But I'm not a Nikonian. I would, of course, defer to anyone who is.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 12:54 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 13
Default

Thanks TCav! I'll have a look at that Tamron lens.

Another option is to get the D90 with kit lens then a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. What do you think? Or should I just get the D90 or D300 body then the Tamron lens you recommended?

daemonjin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 1:33 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The Nikon kit lens is stabilized, which can be handy in available light. But the Tamron is faster, which is also handy in available light, and it's sharper, which would be better for scenery. The 50mm f/1.4is nice, and might bea good portrait lens.

For scenery, I'd get the Tamron 17-50.

For portraits, if I had the kit lens, I'd get the 50/1.4, but if I had the Tamron, the 50/1.4 is too close. Instead, I think I'dwantsomething more different, like maybe the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 2:06 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 13
Default

Cool. Thanks TCav! I've decided to get body only D90 or D300 (if i get a good price) then pair it with that Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 (or if I can afford the Nikkor 80mm f/1.4).


daemonjin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 2:10 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 13
Default

By the way, are these lens choices good for low light situations?

daemonjin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 2:36 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

daemonjin wrote:
Quote:
Cool. Thanks TCav! I've decided to get body only D90 or D300 (if i get a good price) then pair it with that Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 (or if I can afford the Nikkor 80mm f/1.4).
There isn't a lot of difference between the D90 and the D300. The D90 can record videos, and has scene modes which are useful for just starting out, but the D300 is better for sports/action/wildlife. You didn't indicate that sports/action/wildlife was an interest of yours, so the D90 might be the better choice.

I really like my Tamron 17-50, but I mentioned the Sigma 70/2.8 becasue it seems like a good focal length for portraits, is just different enough from the 17-50 to have seperate and distinct uses, and is supersharp. There are other lenses that might serve you as well, like the Nikon 85/1.8. You might want to take a look at them while you're in the store.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2009, 2:39 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

daemonjin wrote:
Quote:
By the way, are these lens choices good for low light situations?
I like f/2.8for low light situations, but larger apertures are better. In fact, you might be better off with teh Nikon 85/1.8 instead of the Sigma 70/2.8. It will do well as a portrait lens and will even do well for indoor sports, should the occasion arise.
TCav is online now   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 7:25 PM.