what lens/lenses to get with a d90?

[vshah]

update:

so i've pretty much decided to go with the D90. all i need to decide now is which lens/lenses to get with it. should i just get the kit 18-105? from what I've heard, its nothing special. I can get a d90 body for $880, which would leave me around $400 for a lens. anything better than the 18-105 in that price range? i don't such a long zoom, since I already have the 80-200. i would however like to have 18mm on the wide end.

i would prefer new, but i suppose a case could be made for used. I'm a bit wary of used stuff in general. craigslist in Pittsburgh sucks for photography stuff...

thanks for all your help

-Vivan



original post:

so i'm buying my first dslr. my family has always owned nikons, and I have used a d70 and a d700 extensively, so I want to stick with nikon.

given my budget, i've come up with two rough options:

1st: new d90 + 18-105mm kit. can be found online for ~$1150

2nd:recertified d60 for $350, and a new 18-200 for $699. total ~$1050

3rd:
a third option that I just came across is a recertified d90 for $769 and the 18-200 lens. $1469 ...but that is exceeding my budget by a couple hundred...

the d90 is a better camera for sure, but i could probably resell the d60 in a year or so, and i can use the 18-200 far into the future. either option leaves me with a couple hundred extra for filters/accessories. the d90 does come with a 1 year warranty compared with 90 days on the d60 however.

my dad is giving me his old 80-200 f2.8

any insight or opinions would be appreciated

thanks,
Vivan

 

[blackhawk]

I'd say the D90 kit is a better option at this time depending on what type of picture taking it would be used for.

I have an 18-200 VR and its a wonderful lens but the D90 kit 18-105 would cover most of what a family would be taking pics of and the 80-200 could be used with it I believe depending on the exact model if you need a bit more reach or it could be sold if you want some other type of tele lens.

The D60 couldn't use the 80-200 I believe as it requires a built in lens motor for AF.

The D90 also offers movie taking as an option while the D60 wont, my thoughts anyways.

 

[vshah]

the 80-200 is actually an af-s Lens, so it would work with the d60

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm

a third option that I just came across is a recertified d90 for $769 and the 18-200 lens. $1469 ...but that is exceeding my budget by a couple hundred...

 

[jpeyton]

The 80-200AFS is an amazing lens; I'm a bit jealous (I have the AFD version). Congrats!

I think having that pro-glass also makes it easier to recommend a higher-end body. I have a D90 (a factory refurbished one from JR.com), and it's a great camera. The high-ISO performance is outstanding. In fact a lot of pros that have a D700 choose the D90 over the D300 for their DX backup body. Buy the D90 body only and pick up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8; that shouldn't be more than $1300 for the pair new (even less if you go refurbished/used).

That's not to say the D60 isn't a great camera (especially for $350). Sometimes I'm amazed by the quality of the output from my D40. But the D90 is definitely worth the extra money from a features, image quality, and usability standpoint. The ability to autofocus with non-AFS lenses is also nice.

 

[troytime]

d90 with the 18-105

 

[tdawg]

option 1 for me. i don't see the value in the 18-200 compared to the 18-105, since you have the 80-200 af-s; i don't think it's worth the extra $400 or so to move up from the 18-105 to the 18-200, let alone choosing a used/refurbished d90 with a shorter warranty versus a new one.

might also want to consider the d200 at $599 at bestbuy.com.

 

[vshah]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The 80-200AFS is an amazing lens; I'm a bit jealous (I have the AFD version). Congrats!

I think having that pro-glass also makes it easier to recommend a higher-end body. I have a D90 (a factory refurbished one from JR.com), and it's a great camera. The high-ISO performance is outstanding. In fact a lot of pros that have a D700 choose the D90 over the D300 for their DX backup body. Buy the D90 body only and pick up a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8; that shouldn't be more than $1300 for the pair new (even less if you go refurbished/used).

That's not to say the D60 isn't a great camera (especially for $350). Sometimes I'm amazed by the quality of the output from my D40. But the D90 is definitely worth the extra money from a features, image quality, and usability standpoint. The ability to autofocus with non-AFS lenses is also nice.

did you get an extended warranty with the refurbished d90? adorama has a pretty good deal on them, but i'm wary of the 90 day warranty. even though my family has 7 nikon bodies that are still working to this day without issues. the extended warranties seem like a good idea but i don't know which 3rd party provider is reputable...

 

[Deleted member 4644]

The 18-200 is over rates. It has moderate distortion and CA. It has only above average sharpness. Get a D90. That camera will last and give you a lot of semipro features. You already have a great distance lens. I'd get an 18-55 for now and a D90 and that's it. 18-55 is sharp and has almost no distortion. Used for under 100.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Option 1

 

[Munky]

I'd go with the d90, for the same reasons as previously stated.

 

[vshah]

so i've pretty much decided to go with the D90. all i need to decide now is which lens/lenses to get with it. should i just get the kit 18-105? from what I've heard, its nothing special. I can get a d90 body for $880, which would leave me around $400 for a lens. anything better than the 18-105 in that price range? i don't such a long zoom, since I already have the 80-200. i would however like to have 18mm on the wide end.

i would prefer new, but i suppose a case could be made for used. I'm a bit wary of used stuff in general. craigslist in Pittsburgh sucks for photography stuff...

thanks for all your help

-Vivan

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: vshah
so i've pretty much decided to go with the D90. all i need to decide now is which lens/lenses to get with it. should i just get the kit 18-105? from what I've heard, its nothing special. I can get a d90 body for $880, which would leave me around $400 for a lens. anything better than the 18-105 in that price range? i don't such a long zoom, since I already have the 80-200. i would however like to have 18mm on the wide end.

i would prefer new, but i suppose a case could be made for used. I'm a bit wary of used stuff in general. craigslist in Pittsburgh sucks for photography stuff...

thanks for all your help

-Vivan

I'd say, get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The Tamron is wide enough for landscapes (27mm equiv) and is useful for portraits/people shots as well, with a f/2.8 max aperture that gives a pretty good bokeh (which you can't really get with the slow 18-105mm kit zoom). Sure, the Tamron doesn't have VR, but the fast, constant aperture more than makes up for it in my opinion since you will be able to use faster shutter speeds anyway. My copy was very, very sharp.

 

[itisaniceday]

with the 18-105

 

[IronWing]

I've been happy with the 16-85.

 

[twistedlogic]

A cheap alternative would be a 18-55 VR for as low as ~$100 used.

That would leave you with $300, enough for a used 50mm F1.8 and a new 35mm F1.8. These two primes will be sharper than any zoom you can buy, you just have to foot zoom.

 

[tdawg]

18-70 AF-S. It's faster than the 18-105 or any other kit lens, pairs up well with your existing 80-200, is sharp, and can be had used for under $200. Check www.keh.com for selection.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

My vote is for the 18-55. Actually, *consider* getting the non VR version. It is possible that the VR version does not have ED glass where the II version does. Also get a 50mm 1.8.

 

[twistedlogic]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
My vote is for the 18-55. Actually, *consider* getting the non VR version. It is possible that the VR version does not have ED glass where the II version does. Also get a 50mm 1.8.

How about a 50mm 1.8 and a SB-600,

 

[jpeyton]

The 18-55VR is just as sharp as the non-VR version; I had one and loved it. Always go for the VR version if you have the option and the money.

I also have the 18-70mm; excellent optic. Very sharp all over the frame. I wish Nikon updated it with a VR version. Goes for about $150-$200 used.

The 50/1.8 is a must-buy for anyone with a Nikon DSLR (unless you have the 50/1.4). I would hold off on the SB-600 unless you can get a great deal. Nikon will probably replace it later this year.

 

[Munky]

I still use the 18-55 VR when I want a light zoom lens, and the VR definitely helps a lot of times. Another lens to consider it the new 35mm 1.8 - it's inexpensive, sharp, and offers a viewing angle similar to a 50mm lens on a traditional film camera.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: tdawg
18-70 AF-S. It's faster than the 18-105 or any other kit lens, pairs up well with your existing 80-200, is sharp, and can be had used for under $200. Check www.keh.com for selection.

Another vote. I really like the 18-70 as a value buy.

Spend the rest of the money on something fun, like a 105/2.5 AIS or 85/1.8 or even a macro

 

[Muadib]

If you don't mind demos, Cameta has the D90 quite a few kits on ebay. I got one with the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens, the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Autofocus Zoom for $1100. I used live cashback for 8% off, for a total of $1040 shipped. The D90 & the 18-55 are demos, and the 70-300 is new.

What are your thoughts on the 70-300?