Nikon Lens for D90

J

jonathan_c

Messages
7
Edit My Images
No
I've currently got a Canon 400D and EF 50mm 1.4 but I'll soon be replacing the Canon with a Nikon D90 and I'm unsure which lens to go for. Having never owned a Nikon before I know very little about their lenses so any help would be very appreciated. I definately want to stick with Nikon lenses, I've owned Sigma and Tamron lenses for my Canon and was unimpressed with both.

My options are:
1. The D90 with the 18-105mm kit lens (from what I've read, this seems a good lens) and get the 70-300mm at a later date.
2. D90 body only and buy the Nikon 18-200mm. This lens also seems to get good reviews but the prospect of distortion (understandable) puts me off a little.

How does the 18-200mm compare to the 18-105mm in terms of IQ?

I'm in a bit of a quandry. Ideally I'd like to go for the 18-200mm as not having to change often would be a bonus but on the other hand I'd like the lens that offered the best IQ. I'm probably asking too much, hence any advice would be a huge help.

I did own a EF 70-200mm L f4 but hardly ever used it as at the time I didn't take my camera outdoors a lot. This year I'm planning to catch some motorsport at my local track (Oulton Park). Would 200mm be long enough or would be 300mm be the minimum? As far as I can recall (from 2005) you can stand right behind the crash barrier which is something 20-30ft from the track.

A 50mm prime is also a definite purchase but I see Nikon offer 3 in the form of 2 f1.4 lens and a f1.8. I've owned both the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 from Canon and both were great. How does the Nikon 1.8 compare to the 1.4s?

Thanks for any help.
 
If it's the 70-300mm VR lens you're looking at then I'd go with option 1 from your two choices. That is unless you don't tend to shoot more than 200mm with your current setup?!

With regards to the 50mm, the f/1.8 is excellent value for money. Although on a cropped sensor camera you may wish to consider the new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens instead of the 50mm?
 
If it was me I would get body only and get this lens to start off with this

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=124270

This is the old kit lens off the D70 and is a cracking bit of glass, I sold my 18-200 and reverted to this as it produces better stuff. (My Opinion....)

Then you can get other stuff along the way.

If you want a prime as well keep your eye open for a 28mm as this will give you near as damn it 50mm on the crop sensor



Regards

Nigel
 
if you dont use the 300mm part of the lens range much the cheaper 70-300mm G lens might be worth thinking about as you can get it on ebay for under £100 new and is a good buy if only to be used a few times (i use one all the time as no need for the VR and dont see point paying more for something i dont need). If you get a D90 and want too try the "cheap" nikon one PM me and i will lend you one for the day soo you can see what they are like (missus wont be using hers much this season so it is a spare at moment).
 
I also like motorsport and recently got a sigma 70-200 2.8 from TP classifieds. The results from a trip to cadwell were very impressive so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss sigma. I also have the nkon 70-300vr but found most of my shots at cadwell were under 200mm. I've only been to oulton once but I would say 200mm should be enough. It also depends on if your shooting bikes or cars. I would definately recommend the nikon 70-300 but its not cheap at the moment, I picked up the sigma 70-200 2.8 used for a little over the price of the nikon new.
 
Thanks for the advice:clap:

sdb123: Yes, it is the VR version, sorry for not including that. My lack of knowledge in all things Nikon, showed up there.

I've just seen the price of the 18-200mm, for some reason I thought they were cheaper. I think option 2 is a no-go as I couldn't really afford over a grand (body and 18-200mm) at the moment. The price of the body and 18-105mm, at £750, is well within budget so I'll most likely go for that.

The advice so far has been very useful. To be honest, I was hoping 200mm would be enough as when I had the Canon 70-200 I never encountered a situation where I needed more. I like the suggestion of the Sigma 2.8, I previously owned the (Canon fit) 10-20mm and 24-70mm f2.8. Both of which were good but I've read so many reviews of Siggy's having focussing problems that it really put me off. These were for Canon fit, so I don't know if the Nikon fit suffer from the same problems. The 70-200mm 2.8 is going to be a consideration now though. I've only owned one Tamron (17-50mm 2.8) and hated it. Maybe I got a dud, but it was very soft at 2.8 to 8 and seemed to be front focussing on the odd occasion.(imo).

I think I'll probably go for the body and 18-105, and get familiar with the camera and get a fast prime and telephoto in a few months when I've got a bit of spare cash.

Thanks for the advice on the 28mm and 35mm, well worth considering but the 50mm has been practically glued onto my 400d as I find it a really good focal length.

Mike: Thanks for the offer of the lens loan, that is really a kind thing to do. I may take you up on that offer. I could get some pointers/advice at the same time:wave:

Thanks again to everyone, great advice.
 
I'm with you on the concerns about issues with sigmas at first but getting it from TP classifieds it was descibed as sharpe and had been through the hands of a few TP members who also commented it was a sharpe copy. I always recommend new members who might not be aware of the classified section to keep an eye on it, there's a new feedback system to help as well. I've also picked up a second sigma from there as well the 100-300f4 also a good copy thats been through a few members hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top