D90 upgrade advice!

dan_yorkshire

dan_yorkshire

Messages
2,398
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this question has been slightly done to death but I'm about to purchase my D90 upgrade.

I currently have a D60 which I will be selling with 18-55. Also have a 55-200 vr which I'll either keep or sell. I'll also be keeping my 35mm 1.8.

These are my options.

- D90 body, Tamron 17-50 VC, my 55-200.

- D90 body, Nikon 16-85, my 55-200.

- D90 with 18-105 kit, leaving me ££ to upgrade tele lens to 70-300 VR.

My photography is general interest, the odd game of amateur footy for local teams websites and I hope to get into more portraits, eventually getting a home studio kit.

General concerns are the two Nikons being a bit slow and the chances of getting a 'bad copy' of the Tamron.

Also read problems about the TTL metering when using flash with the Tamron.

Also is it worth paying the extra for the VC version of the Tamron over non VC seeing as it's only a short focal length?

Wish I would stop being a big girls blouse and just make my mind up but hoping to find some opinions that will sway me one way or the other.

Cheers,

Dan
 
Its a nightmare tryring to decide, think we all get stuck in that same place at some point :lol:

I upgraded to the D90 a while back and decided on the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, i am very please with it as my walk about lens, it is incredibly sharp! I too have the 55-200 VR, I found it too slow unless it was a very bright day when i used it on my D40 but on the D90 with its high iso abilities it makes it a completely different lens. I also have the sigma 10-20 but i love to capture land/sea scapes which this lens is perfect for, finally the 50 F1.8 (auto focus with D90) which i find hard to use now as the Tamron is sooo good!

Good luck :thinking:
 
Dan, I had (well, still have!) exactly the same kit as you and I took the plunge and bought a 2nd D90 from the trade board on this website a couple of weeks ago. I've only used in it in anger the once, but even just sitting on th sofa playing around with the D90 is a whole new experience. it really seems a great camera.

i also bought a new Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (mainly for gigs/concerts) to get that extra bit of reach.

can't answer some of your questions, but the D90 is a cracking camera, I love my D60 to bits, it's been great for 18months to get me into digital photography. but the D90 is the next level. inbuilt AF motor, better ISO, even the top LCD screen makes such a difference. do it!
 
I just bought a D90 yesterday, but chose the non-VC version of the 17-50mm f/2.8 lens.

The VC version has had mixed reviews (mostly bad), whereas the standard 17-50 has won tons of awards. I also have the (FX) 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron, which was one hell of bargain and is super sharp, so I had no hesitation about getting it's little brother :naughty:.

Together, they make a great combination, although the lens makes the camera feel a just little heavy :|. With the nifty fifty on, the D90 feels just like a grown up D40 - featherweight :D.

I love it :thumbs:!
 
If I were you I would go for a Tamron 17-50 (non VC), if that means getting the D90 kit, selling the lens and picking up the Tamron second-hand so be it (that's what I did and have never looked back!)
 
Cheers for your replies guys, its doing my head in.

I'll read one websites reviews and think I've made my mind up, then read the next website and spot a dodgy comment somewhere and its wide open again.

I'm really tempted to go for the 16-85. Whilst I know its pretty slow, its a well built Nikon lens that will have no relationship problems with the body.

Aaaarrrggghh! The daft thing is I know I wont be too upset whichever I chose
 
To throw more fuel in the fire (you're gonna hate me) I upgraded from D60 to a D300 and swapped my 18-55mm for a 28-80mm G. It's a weird 3.3 - 5.6, so not awfully fast, but it's a tremendous lens... and it's DIRT cheap (I got mine for under £70 delivered :eek:)! The reason I chose it is because the range from about 30 to 70/80 is my most used as walkabout, so it fitted the bill perfectly.

Effectively, you need to choose which one you'll get most use out of. How much do you need that 2.8 lens too. It's all about how you use your camera to justify what type of lens you need.
 
karmagarda said:
Effectively, you need to choose which one you'll get most use out of. How much do you need that 2.8 lens too. It's all about how you use your camera to justify what type of lens you need.
Click to expand...

Totally appretiate that yeah. Its not so much the 2.8 wide open that will be nice but the 2.8 (faster speeds) throughout the range that I know I could call on when needed. Something the Nikons dont have.

:bang: :lol:
 
dan_yorkshire said:
Totally appretiate that yeah. Its not so much the 2.8 wide open that will be nice but the 2.8 (faster speeds) throughout the range that I know I could call on when needed. Something the Nikons dont have.

:bang: :lol:
Click to expand...

That's something that annoys me too. If only they maintained the 3.5 at all focal lengths they wouldn't be so bad eh!
 
If you're going to be shooting football and portraits I'd probably skip the 17-50 for now, cracking lens though it is and go for the Nikon 70-300 VR. The 17-50 is a bit on the short end for what you seem to want it for.

I'd also try and get hold of a 50 1.8 for the portraits. Strangely the Tamron 17-50 at 50mm is a fair bit wider than the Nikon nifty fifty. I don't know if this is the case for all versions but it certainly is for my copy, which is the older and quicker focusing non-BIM version.

I've never had a problem with flash metering while using the Tamron by the way.
 
Lazlo Woodbine said:
If you're going to be shooting football and portraits I'd probably skip the 17-50 for now, cracking lens though it is and go for the Nikon 70-300 VR. The 17-50 is a bit on the short end for what you seem to want it for.

I'd also try and get hold of a 50 1.8 for the portraits. Strangely the Tamron 17-50 at 50mm is a fair bit wider than the Nikon nifty fifty. I don't know if this is the case for all versions but it certainly is for my copy, which is the older and quicker focusing non-BIM version.

I've never had a problem with flash metering while using the Tamron by the way.
Click to expand...

Yeah the 50mm longest focal length does worry me on the Tamrons, if the Nikon 16-85 was 3.5 through the range it would be a no brainer, its shutter speed that I think I'd require over the DoF and sure the D90 ISO capabilities would help there.

Need to look at my photos exif data with my current 18-55 D60 kit lens and see just how many really need the larger apertures.

I have my 35mm for portraits, I know the 50mm will be more flattering but sometimes the 50mm isnt wide enough for indoor photography with limited space.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top