What lenses would complement my D90 now?

D

Doog

Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Having just sold my D60, 18-55 kit lens and Tamron 70 - 300 macro lens, and upgraded to a new-ish D90 with 18 -105 kit lens, I now find myself in the position to add a lens or two. I may keep it to one lens and add some filters. However, I don't specialise in anything in particular and I'm not sure what lens would be a good addition. I'm thinking maybe a 100-300 for birds and animals, or a better macro than I had with the Tamron. I'm not adverse to buying second hand but it has to be recognised as a quality lens. If however I buy new I would like to try beating the vat increase. So my fellow togs, what route would you recommend I go down and what lenses would compliment what I have.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions and advice:thumbs:
 
I would add either the Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR or the new Tamron 70-300 Di VC USD (my preference is the Nikon) and for macro work I like to use a set of Kenko DG Auto extension tubes as they retain all the functionality of AF and metering and give you a greater functional range than a dedicated macro at a much lower cost.

You may find this website informative http://www.texasmothman.com/tutorials/macro_method.asp
 
I would go for the 16-85mm as a general walk around and the nikon 70-300mm vr. REMOVED, please read forum rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi. My recommends would be a Sigma 10-20mm and nikon 70-300

This would give you a very wide focal range, with decent IQ across the range.

Add a couple of fast primes eg 50mm f/1.8 & 35mm f/2 & you are covered for most situations.

As an aside, the 18-105vr is surprisingly sharp for it's price.
 
commjo said:
Hi. My recommends would be a Sigma 10-20mm and nikon 70-300

This would give you a very wide focal range, with decent IQ across the range.
Click to expand...

I can vouch for that, when I was just using the D90 the 18-105, 70-300 10-20 made up my kit along with a 35mm 1.8 for the low light stuff.
 
Another vote for the 70-300mm VR. Love mine, although am considering getting a 50-500mm Siggy instead. So that might be worth a look. Gets some good reviews on here.

As for macro a DCR-250 filter on the 70-300mm VR works well, you just need a flash to go with it really.
 
A sigma 70-200 f2.8 would sit nicely on a D90, the new macro version with OS, or the older non macro like what i got.
 
Blind Pugh said:
I would add either the Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR or the new Tamron 70-300 Di VC USD (my preference is the Nikon) and for macro work I like to use a set of Kenko DG Auto extension tubes as they retain all the functionality of AF and metering and give you a greater functional range than a dedicated macro at a much lower cost.

You may find this website informative http://www.texasmothman.com/tutorials/macro_method.asp
Click to expand...

I think I'd prefer the Nikon 70-300 as I didn't like the quality of the last Tamron lens. It colour fringed quite badly wide open and build quality felt poor. I enjoyed reading that link.:thumbs:

mjjiva said:
I would go for the 16-85mm as a general walk around and the nikon 70-300mm vr. REMOVED, please read forum rules.
Click to expand...

Another vote for the Nikon lens. Thanks

commjo said:
Hi. My recommends would be a Sigma 10-20mm and nikon 70-300

This would give you a very wide focal range, with decent IQ across the range.

Add a couple of fast primes eg 50mm f/1.8 & 35mm f/2 & you are covered for most situations.

As an aside, the 18-105vr is surprisingly sharp for it's price.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion there I think. And yes, I do think the 18-105 is quite good :thumbs:

jpw said:
I can vouch for that, when I was just using the D90 the 18-105, 70-300 10-20 made up my kit along with a 35mm 1.8 for the low light stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks

buckle247 said:
Another vote for the 70-300mm VR. Love mine, although am considering getting a 50-500mm Siggy instead. So that might be worth a look. Gets some good reviews on here.

As for macro a DCR-250 filter on the 70-300mm VR works well, you just need a flash to go with it really.
Click to expand...

I'll have a look at the Sigma. Is it well built?

Graham00 said:
A sigma 70-200 f2.8 would sit nicely on a D90, the new macro version with OS, or the older non macro like what i got.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input.:thumbs:
 
buckle247 said:
Another vote for the 70-300mm VR. Love mine, although am considering getting a 50-500mm Siggy instead. So that might be worth a look. Gets some good reviews on here.

As for macro a DCR-250 filter on the 70-300mm VR works well, you just need a flash to go with it really.
Click to expand...

The 50-500 (Bigma) is a big, heavy lens, especially the newer OS version, you may well find that you will keep the 70-300 VR as it's so light and small in comparison to the Bigma! :)

I have the Sigma 120-300/2.8 with 1.4x and 2.0x TC's (it's a big lump! :eek:) which I regard as my birding/airshow kit, as I would a Bigma. But I still find a lot of use for my 70-300 VR, it's a really good lens with decent close focus ability and superb to around 200mm, it's no slouch at 300mm either! I've taken some cracking shots with it, as you say with a decent close-up filter or extension tubes and flash, it makes a very fine macro.

I regard it as an essential lens in anyone's kit, keep it!! :thumbs:
 
Ok, the best lenses without breaking the bank...

Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 both f/2.8. IQ wise very close to the Nikon beasts. I use the latter as like that focal length. £200 ish second hand

Nikon 70-300 is not very good by all accounts, although cheap, the 70-300 VR is very good though - £300 ish SH

Tamron 90mm Macro (2.8) is hard to beat, £200 -£230 SH

A prime really makes you think about your shots more and are very sharp and useful in low light - 50mm 1.8 around £100 new, 50mm 1.4AFS around £220 SH and this is a very good lens.
 
I got the D90
for everyday stuff I use 18-105 and 70-300VR Nikon

for when I want to do something specific I have three very sharp primes
50 1.8
180 2.8
300 F4
plus 1.4 Teleconverter

Bset of both worlds
 
Thanks for chipping in everyone. I would eventually add a prime or two but covering a wide range of focal lengths is my objective at the moment. I'm moving towards the Nikon 70-300vr as my first buy. £385 seems to be about the lowest price new and although there are cheaper SH on fleabay, I'm wary of buying from there. Can any of you recommend any good trusted SH dealers that would be likely to have one in stock? Thanks again on your help with this.:thumbs:
 
I know everyone is recommending the 70-300 VR and it's a great wee lens, however for not much more than the new price of one of those you can get a mint 80-200 f/2.8 and, having owned both at the same time, I found the difference in image quality to be night and day. The 80-200 is just so much better.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I know everyone is recommending the 70-300 VR and it's a great wee lens, however for not much more than the new price of one of those you can get a mint 80-200 f/2.8 and, having owned both at the same time, I found the difference in image quality to be night and day. The 80-200 is just so much better.....
Click to expand...

That good eh? My thoughts are though that what I might gain in IQ I'd loose in focal length. It is a fairly fast lens for a zoom I suppose though, but you have got me thinking again. Damn you ;)
 
Doog said:
That good eh? My thoughts are though that what I might gain in IQ I'd loose in focal length. It is a fairly fast lens for a zoom I suppose though, but you have got me thinking again. Damn you ;)
Click to expand...


:D

If you fancy a shot of my 70-200 VR, which is optically near enough identical to the 80-200 let me know :thumbs:
 
Had the 70-300VR and now have the 70-200 which is close to the 80-200.

Thought the 70-300 was a useful lens, nice range and pretty good IQ. The 70-200 is a big step up though and a stunning lens. Only time I have missed the extra 100mm has been at airshows. Having had the 2.8, I would not go back, would rather have the better IQ and crop if I need to.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:D

If you fancy a shot of my 70-200 VR, which is optically near enough identical to the 80-200 let me know :thumbs:
Click to expand...

cambsno said:
Had the 70-300VR and now have the 70-200 which is close to the 80-200.

Thought the 70-300 was a useful lens, nice range and pretty good IQ. The 70-200 is a big step up though and a stunning lens. Only time I have missed the extra 100mm has been at airshows. Having had the 2.8, I would not go back, would rather have the better IQ and crop if I need to.
Click to expand...

Checked out the prices new which might have the final say in this. At £1600 and £850 for the 70-200 and 80-200 respectively, they are a bit out of price range at this moment in time. Also I'm not deluding myself that my skills are good enough to get the best from them as yet. Going all in for a SH 80-200 might be an option but would rule out my hoped for set of ND filters which I've been hankering after for some time. Decisions decisions.:thinking: The 70-300vr is looking more likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top