Help me with Nikon D90 lens choice

p1tse

p1tse

Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
So I have a Nikon D90
I sold the kit lens and replaced it with the Nikon 18-200VR, brilliant lens, but it's just not as sharp as I would like, which is understandable for a versatile lens to cover such wide range.

My other lenses are 50mm prime, which I hardly use due to focal distance, so next in line i've been playing with my 35mm prime only when i'm grabbing the camera for shots around home, as I want some flexibility when out.

What I miss from the Sony A300 days is the inbuilt Image Stabilisation in the body, so VR type lenses are required for me.

Most shots are of people, family and my son ;-)

DSC_2150.jpg


Thoughts?
 
cambsno said:
Look at the Tamron 28-75 - really good lens.
Click to expand...

but without being VR type style I think i won't be able to keep it still enough?

i did have it on the sony a300 and was my choice of lens most of the time too
 
I agree the Tamron 28-75mm/f2.8 is a great lens but it doesn't have VR (unless there's a new one that I missed).

IMO you missed a trick in replacing the 18-105 with the 18-200 - the former is a better lens all round - but that is only my opinion :)
 
maybe, but i want more reach
 
It's not obvious from your post what you're trying to achieve. Are you looking for a sharper zoom lens than your 18-200 with VR? What sort of focal length?
 
The 18-200 is a sharp lens, certainly as good as most zooms - are you sure it's not user error? (nothing negative meant by this, but worth asking)
 
Have you got the exif data for that photo?

Only part of his hat is in focus, I think its a movement/shutter speed issue.

Ken Rockwell said:
The 18-200mm VR II isn't a team player; it's a prima-donna that works best by itself.

THe 18-200 is awesome, and is all most people need.

I've gotten so lazy that the 18-200mm is too heavy for me to want to carry around all day. It suits the chunky old D200 and D300, but I don't shoot either of those cameras anymore.

If you carry an 18-200mm VR, carry nothing else except the 35/1.8 for the dark.

If you carry the 10-24mm, do not carry the heavy 18-200mm VR because it duplicates part of the range. If you're going to carry the 10-24mm, bring the 55-200mm VR instead of the bulkier 18-200mm VR.

The 18-200mm VR takes a 72mm filter, while all the other lenses except the 10-24mm take standard 52mm filters.
Click to expand...
 
Have to say that the 18-200 is not known for being sharp, I bought one a year ago from Amazon. (Bought from Amazon because if, as I suspected, the sharpness was dodgy I could send it straight back without hassle and this is indeed exactly what I did.)

I agree with Bristolian that the 18-105 is a sharper lens, the only downside is the plastic mount which I absolutely HATE! Your solution (IMHO) is to look out for the 18-70 lens that Nikon used to supply as a kit lens. The 18-70 is a cracking lens for the money and very well regarded for sharpness and overall glass quality. You can pick these up in excellent condition for around the £100 mark.

If you can afford a few hundred quid, I suggest you go for the Nikon 16-85 which is a superb lens for the money and with your 35mm will cover most of your bases.:thumbs:

Most of my lenses just sit in the bag now, the only three I use are the 35mm 1.8 (BRILLIANT value), my 16-85 and my 85mm 1.8
 
Had one of the 18-200 mk1 vr.

Was brilliant as a first lens.. very versatile.

But I could never get the crisp pictures others got with it.

Then I got a 105mm macro, sooooooo much sharper :D



As to your dilemma, well its a bit tricky as you've already posted you've got the 35mm.

Some people have said a 17-50mm (or similar range) tamron is very crisp and quick.

I'd play more with the 35mm as it will force you to think more ... but is fast and from what I've heard pretty damn good for the money.

One of the short ranges might do you, perhaps a 24-105 sort of range (equivalent to most PnS cameras 3x optical ish)

Also search the forum using the search function. I think there was a post fairly recently (few months) about the best walk about lens for nikon/canon. If you can find that post you might have a few more lenses to eye up.

Good luck
 
There is also the Sigma 50-150 2.8 if you want something longer. The OS version isn't cheap mind.
 
Moos3h said:
The 18-200 is a sharp lens, certainly as good as most zooms - are you sure it's not user error? (nothing negative meant by this, but worth asking)
Click to expand...

I dont think the 18-200 is as sharp as most Nikon lenses, so I would guess its not user error?

Why does the OP need VR? Not bothered with it on my 24-70 or my old Tamron. I guess because I shoot mainly people, I never go slower than 1/60 I have never really needed it.
 
The photo above is either user error or a broken lens.

The right hand side of the hat ear flap is in focus, the further left you go the more motion blur there is, you can see the blur getting worse as you track across the top of his hat.

My guess he is on auto and the camera chose a slow shutter speed. With kids start at 1/200 on the shutter speed to get a good shot.
 
Personally, I'd trade the 18-200 for the 18-55 (or 70) and 55-200 VR. If you find the 50 too long, then swap it for a 35 1.8. Then you'll have a set of 3 good sharp lenses and not really be out any money. You'll be great in good light and fine in poor light (with the 35). If you want VR, then the 18-55 comes in VR.

BTW, that is almost exactly my bag. I have the 18-55 non VR, 55-200 VR, 35 1.8, and 300f/4 all on a D90. The only thing I long for now is long fast glass, so my next will be either an 80-200, 70-200 f4 VR (if it is announced soon), or an 85 1.8.

Thanks,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Dale_d3100 said:
The photo above is either user error or a broken lens.
Click to expand...


This.

The 18-200 IS a sharp lens, in a similar fashion as the 18-105, 18-70, 18-55 (see where I'm going with this.....?)

My point is that with that level of reduction (assuming it's not a massive crop) - correct technique and in camera (if JPEG) / processing software (if RAW) settings, there's no way a correctly functioning lens would produce something like that which looks more like missed focus and motion blur.

That shot, I seriously suspect, would have looked just as 'soft' with any of the other lenses mentioned above.
 
Shot @ 35mm f5.6 1/125s (according to the exif) ISO 200 and -.3 exposure (always a good plan).

Have you tried on a more stationary object?
Possibly use flash too see whether that makes a difference.


As to the other lenses, is there anyone who is close that you could try/borrow the lenses from to see which would work better ? And possibly test your lens at the same time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top