Which lens for D90 ?

amnesia

amnesia

Messages
832
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I spent this morning at a local falconry centre with my D90, 18-105, 50 f1.8 and SB600. Pics to follow later once I have cropped and processed ;)
Had so much fun that I have booked onto a specific photo experience day THIS SATURDAY with these guys : http://www.captivelight.net/libcent.htm

Now, this recommends a minimum of 200mm zoom, and possibly a macro (for the reptile house). To be honest, I did find my 18-105 kit lens a bit limiting with the flight display and I couldn't fill the frame with the tethered birds, although I will be able to get a lot closer on Saturday.

So... I have tomorrow to acquire something suitable.

As much as I would like one, I can't justify the 70-200 2.8 at the moment :(
The 18-200 is more than do-able, but it has had some slightly 'off' reviews (our friend Ken, excepted). Is it optically any better than the 18-105 that I already have ?

Anything else I should check out tomorrow ? I have ~ £600 to spend.

Cheers,
Daniel.
 
70-300mm VR is a good lens and should fit the bill alternatively hire one or two you might just get them in time then you could really go to town.
 
There's no OS on the Sigma though, is there ?
(Unless you're talking about the newer Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM... in which case I would probably find the extra £200 for the Nikon.
 
I just recently bought the Nikkor 70-300 vr2 and I'm really pleased with it. Cost new around £350 which would leave something to play with for a macro lens too. I think you'll be around £400 though if you're buying from a shop before the weekend.
 
Thanks Dougie... I will check this one out tomorrow.

:thumbs:
 
I have the 55-200 VR nikon and it is really sharp. Depending on your distances, it can be enough length, and depending on light it can be bright enough. It has VR and af-s. And, with some close up filters (about a tenner on the bay) you can do some fair macro too. Without the filters it gets close enough to fill 1/3rd a frame with a large bumblebee at 200 mm. Not a bad choice and I'd grab it over the 18-200. The 70-300 might be your best bet though if you want to spend for it and carry that much heft.

thanks
rick
 
I understand the 70-300 gets good reviews, but loses sharpness at the long end. I had the 18-200 VR II on my D90, and wondered about it because many said it was not sharp. I now have a 70-200 VRI, and it is very sharp on the crop sensor. But when I look back at my 18-200mm shots, they really don't look bad at all.

The Tamron (70-200) is supposed to be very sharp, but a slower AF than the Sigma. I'd probably consider the Nikon 70-300mm VR if I wanted the extra reach, and value for money.
 
Thanks everyone - I will take my camera with me to the local camera shop and try them out ;)
 
I got rid of my 70-300VR when I acquired a 70-200VRII. Wish I'd kept it now for what I got for it.

The 70-200 has better IQ and the focusing and VR seem better to me, but the 70-300 is excellent value for money. I might get another one at some point as it's a lot lighter to cart around and has that bit more reach. I'd say it's a much a better lens than the 18-200VR I have
 
I would also suggest the 70-300 VR . It gives very good results even when wide open at 300. I have developed the habit of taking it to 300 then pulling it back a bit to about 280 as I have convinced myself it is sharper at this although it could be my imagination! I have seen this lens described as an excellent 70-200 with the bonus of very good performance at 200-300 and if you think of it like that I think even the most critical would say it was excellent value for money.

The VR works well when required although I am often using high shutter speeds for birds in flight so have it switched off.

I also have the second version of the 18-200 - it is far better than the Sigma 18-200 that I had before and after reading what others said I was surprised at just how good it is although for moving subjects such as birds in flight the 70-300 would be a better choice.
 
Consider the Nikon 50-200. It gives great results, and the Vr is handy also :)
 
For macro - the 105mm micro (the older af one is ok or the newer vr) around the 300-400ukp mark.

Zooms no idea. I have a friend who has the 50-500 sigma (around 600-700ukp used) and loves it, and I want to try tamron 80-400 (there is a nikon version too).

If it's a one off shoot, how about hiring the lenses for a day or two? Shouldn't be too extortionate and you get to pick whether you want to invest heavily.
 
Oops... just bought a 70-300VR and some Kenko tubes for my 50mm ;)

Got the rest of the day to learn how to use them now...
 
amnesia said:
Oops... just bought a 70-300VR and some Kenko tubes for my 50mm ;)

Got the rest of the day to learn how to use them now...
Click to expand...

Would be really interested in how you get on with the Kenko tubes with the 70-300 I have been thinking about doing it.
 
The tubes were really for my 50, but might try them with the 70-300 in good light...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top