Nikon D90 Lens Help

[chromance]

Ive just recently sold my D80 and have been eyeing up the
D90 , IM just having troubles decideing if I should just buy the
D90 KIT or Just the D90 Body and adding the 18-200mm Lens To it.
and to compliment the the package with the Tonika 11-16 lens. I also
have an interest in the 70-300 VR lens as I would like to shoot sporting
events , would the 18-200mm be suffient for this kind of usage? Or maybe
I should be looking at something inbetween the 18-200mm range? How is the Kit lens supplied with the D90?

[K1W1]

The 18-200 is not a quality lens and IMO people should stay away from it. It's convenient and that is it's entire reason for existence.

Try this.

D90 body.
16-85 VR lens
70-300VR lens

or substitute the 16-85 for the kit 18-105 which does seem to be getting good reviews.

[chromance]

Ive heard nothing but good about the 18-200mm lens ? I did consider the 16-85 VR lens , but at the same price of the 18-200mm LENS. And the 18-105 lens does seem to be getting good reviews . So many choices.

[K1W1]

Ive heard nothing but good about the 18-200mm lens ?

Check around this forum to start with then read professional reviews at places like SLR gear or Photozone. Most people who rave about the 18-200 do so because it is the only lens they own or in some cases the only lens that they have ever owned and generally what they rave about is the convenience not the image quality.

[Bluenoser23]

18-200mm lens. I have one it's a def win. :) Get it.

[chromance]

Are there any other lenes available in the 70-300vr range that match Nikon or better?
And in the same price range?

[theMadHatter]

I think the 18-200VR is good lens. Not as good as my 24-70, but still a good lens. Besides, it give me some reach on my D300 until I can afford a 70-200VR. :-)

[Rooz]

the 18-200 is what it is. its a highly flexible lens with excellent range but like all lens' of this type it comprimises on image quality.

some people prefer the flexibility and are prepared to make the comprimise. others comprimise on flexibility for better image quality. there is no right or wrong answer to this. it is just about what suits you more. if i had the money i'd have a 18-200VR no problem for a walkaround lens cos i think its great for that purpose.

but facts are facts. and the fact is that the 16-85 is a better lens in terms of image quality. period.

i think you're on the right track. depending on your budget:

#1: 16-85 + 70-300.
#2: 18-105 + 70-300.
#3: 18-105 + 55-200VR.

[philwojo]

The Nikkor 70-300 VR gets great reviews and from personal use is a great lens. It's one main drawback is that it is not going to be a great low-light lens.

I don't think there is anything that is of the same quality in the same price and that has VR in that lens type, but I am not certain of that.

Phil

[erichlund]

I have the 18-200. As Rooz said, it is what it is. If you have to get one, it's the best of the bunch, though some, like the Tamron 18-250 seem to be closing the gap. There are better alternatives.

The 70-300VR is also the best of the bunch. This seems a common theme for recent releases by Nikon.

I recommend you look a shorter zoom ranges. The shorter the zoom range, the less image compromise needs be made in the formula. The 18-105 is about 5.8x range, where the 18-200 is 11x. The 16-85 is 5.3x. The 16-85 has a better build than the kit lenses, but costs more. You can buy the combo of the 18-55vr and 55-200vr. Those are still good lenses, as well. However, they compromise on features that some of the more expensive lenses have, such as manual focus override. If you can afford it, the more expensive lenses are better choices.

[fionndruinne]

The 18-200mm is a "do-everything" lens, but it only accomplishes that by, as they said, compromising image quality. That leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, personally. If you're okay with it, then there you go.

[erichlund]

I can understand deciding that a lens is not for you, but a "bad taste in your mouth"??? That seems sort of "get a life" extreme.

The person deciding if they want this lens should be deciding if they really want to have a lens with this range because under certain instances, they will not carry anything else. Under those circumstances, they have to look at the alternatives in their arsenal. If all you have is the 18-55 (in the 18-x range), then you are looking at a 4x crop to get the same image you can get at full resolution on the 18-200. For that person, carrying the camera with a bit longer lens may be the better choice than packing a second lens to cover the rest of the range. Even with the new 18-105, there's a 50% crop to get the same image.

Another time you may want to consider a super-zoom is when you are going out to a dusty/windy/rainy environment, where you may not want to be changing lenses. The 18-200 gives you the opportunity to get the shot without risking your sensor to the elements.

Another example is when you are an integral part of an event. You want your camera, but your significant other is going to be "not happy" if you're spending all your time changing lenses and messing with the camera. If you have one lens that will get a wide range of images, that provides you a compromise that will keep the peace. Of course, this does not negate the fact that this is probably the time for something more "pocketable".

[Rooz]

for some people "a bad taste in my mouth" means having to change lens' regularly. for others it's spending $400 on a prime that has only one focal length. for others its the weight of a lens. each to their own. not everybody needs, (or wants), the best possible glass around.

[alessy]

I would not go for 18-200mm at all. I thing for that money it is beter to get Kit lens 18-105mm Vr + 70-300mm Vr. 18-105 is sharper than 18-200 and auto fokusing is quite the same speed. For comparison 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR kit lenses with a Nikon D60 are realy slow in auto focus so I think that D90 kit lens 18-105 is realy good choice. It is cheap and gives you same speeds like 18-200 witch is very very expensive, and at the end it gives you beter sharpnes. I'd avoid all all-in-one lenses ...

[erichlund]

So, Alessy, does this mean yours is for sale???

I keep my 18-200 and my nifty 50 in a separate bag. It's my "light" bag. The rest goes in my big bag.

I don't disagree with your evaluation for your use. However, if I had a little more to spend, I might consider the 16-85 over the 18-105. The two degrees at the wide end seems so small, but at the wide end every degree is useful. At the long end, the 85 still overlaps the 70-300, and the 16-85 is a better lens, even if it is a bit overpriced.

[Rooz]

i think that the 16-85 and 18-200 also have VRII, (4 stops), as opposed to the 18-105 which is only VRI, (3 stops). i may be wrong though.

[chromance]

Is there a big difference with VR1 and VR2? IS Nikon releasing a new line of lenes?

[Rooz]

there is roughly a one stop difference. no there is no "new line" of lens'.

[erichlund]

Rooz, you are not wrong.

VR1 gives up to 3 stops of correction, VRII gives up to 4 stops correction. How much you actually get depends on you as much as the camera.

Nikon is always developing new lenses. They have recently released more than their norm, but the question is, will they keep it up or is the recent set an abberation? I don't work for Nikon, so I don't know.

[chromance]

Well , im a few months away from makin the D90 purchase .. hopefully prices will drop
come the new year, or for that matter maybe during the x-mas season. Will keep an eye open for sure. Maybe just start with the D90 and kit lens then work on adding to the collection.

[alessy]

So, Alessy, does this mean yours is for sale???

I keep my 18-200 and my nifty 50 in a separate bag. It's my "light" bag. The rest goes in my big bag.

I don't disagree with your evaluation for your use. However, if I had a little more to spend, I might consider the 16-85 over the 18-105. The two degrees at the wide end seems so small, but at the wide end every degree is useful. At the long end, the 85 still overlaps the 70-300, and the 16-85 is a better lens, even if it is a bit overpriced.


Yes, mine is for sale. Waiting to get new owner...


And I agree that 16-85 is better lense, but I'm talking for the price you get 18-200mm, I'd rather get the kit lense 18-105 and 70-300mm...
If you get 16-85 + 70-300 than you'l have to reach much deeper in your pocket..

Probably it is true that 18-200 has beter VR for its price, but do you need such a powerful VR on 105mm max. I belive you need one on 200mm...
It is a diference, but I wouldnt go for unsharp lense because of the beter Vr. I think it's not worth it...

It is nice lense for traveling, but it has other limitations witch are quite beter on other lenses and I think it is not so hard to change lenses and get beter photos .

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm with Eric on this one. Whilst I'll probably sell my 18-200 when I can pick up a shorter lens. The 18-200 has been great for me.

-It gave me the chance to learn what ranges I shoot,
-it has pretty good IQ,
-it's blisteringly fast AF,
-I can't remember having AF ever hunt (but perhaps it has just super rarely).
-I can take wildlife or other shots and not miss kiddie shots by having the wrong lens on cam.
- no concern with dust on sensor
-It's fantastic for facilitating composition of your shots (and teaching composition skills).

On the downside
- I'd like a bit more contrast and sharpness.
- I don't like my images at < F/7.1
- VR does seam to function better on my 70-300

The 18-200VR is a fantastic lens, way ahead of the competition in this category (I'm told) but no lens is perfect and we shouldn't expect lenses to be. They are all what they are.

[erichlund]

Since I felt the need to defend the 18-200 in the face of overbearing criticism, I should balance that with times when the 18-200 would not be appropriate.

1. You know you'll need to be shooting wide open. This is a lens that needs to be stopped down to get the best out of it. Yes, for a general use lens, it's OK to take some shots wide open, but it prefers to be at f8. Remember, sometimes it's better to get the shot, than for the shot to be perfect. However, this is why the nifty fifty is in the same bag that I keep this lens in. Of course, the nifty fifty doesn't do well wide open either, but that's a different discussion, and an entirely different scale of issue.
2. Shooting architecture. The barrel distortion wide is legendary. Landscapes are OK as long as you are shooting complex terrain. In fact, at wide angles and stopped down, this lens is very sharp.
3. Shooting sports under lights. This is a weakness of any consumer grade lens. If you can't do f2.8, you are likely to struggle. Excellent VR doesn't help with action. If you need VR, you can't do action.

As far as the AF hunting, I know certain situations where it hunts like dog. In those cases, I don't blame the lens. Fortunately, this lens has one thing that 18-105 probably does not - All the time manual focus override. I believe the 16-85 has it as well. I'm not so sure about the 18-105. Perhaps someone who has one can tell us. Of course, any lens can be switched to manual and focused. But certain AF-S lenses (not all) can be manually overridden while they are in autofocus. The 18-70 (IIRC - mine was stolen with the D70) and 18-200 both could. The 18-55 and 55-200 cannot. The 70-300VR can. I personally consider this VERY important if you need to be able to shoot on the spur of the moment.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

One other thing of note is why I want better image quality than the 18-200 was giving me.

I've been shooting like crazy around 12,000 shots in 10 months or so. I've got heaps of great shots of everything I can think about and care about.

Now I'm looking for "perfect" shots of those things and for that I want the specific lens to do each job better.

While I'm doing those planned shots I know I'll be missing spontaneous moments that could have been captured with the 18-200. Thats my trade-off.

[erichlund]

Yes. That's why most of the time, the 17-55 f2.8 sits on my camera. Most of the time I do want better results than I would get with the 18-200.

[chromance]

Well it seems there is a sale on SLR cameras all over the place right now, If you guys were to choose between the 16 - 85VR2 and the 18-105VR for a kit lens which would you choose? I can get the D90 with 16-85VR2 for 1,668.00 Canadian. about a 150.00 dollar saving now.

[erichlund]

The 16-85 is a better lens unless you really need the 85-105 range. Better VR, better build, manual focus override. Can't compare the image quality, but I've heard both are good.

[alessy]

16-85 is extremly good with no disadvantages, it has everything only the price is higher, for some one too high.

18-105 is good lens, fast auto focus and sharp ... It has no override (it is not so importaint to me anyway), and has VRI, but overall it is cheap and it gives you beter photos than 18-200mm...

18-200 good for traveling, expenssive, fast auto focus, but not sharp. So if you like taking portrait shots or if you want to be more specific with this lense, it will no go... For my opinion it has to much limitations on other side for its price...

[Rooz]

Well it seems there is a sale on SLR cameras all over the place right now, If you guys were to choose between the 16 - 85VR2 and the 18-105VR for a kit lens which would you choose? I can get the D90 with 16-85VR2 for 1,668.00 Canadian. about a 150.00 dollar saving now.

yepp. get it. i reckon its the best consumer lens in nikons lineup.

[alessy]

Finaly, today I sold mine Nikkor 18-200mm Vr .
Next time I'll think twice if I'm going to search for that kind of a lense again.
Nikkor all the way, but "all in one lense" probably never again... It depends on what will give new versions of that kind of a lenses, but I think that it is not possible to have everithing in one lense.

[tugboat001]

I have had my d90 for about 10 months now and I love it. As for lenses pretty much any nikon or nikor lens works just fine. I have a few film nikes and i use all the lenses from them with the new diggital camera. as for the 18-200 here is what i use and have great results. for close things either the SIGMA DC 18-50 lens or an older nikkor 50mm. for a longer lens i use either 2 of these, a mitakon 28-80 or a SIGMA DG 70-300mm now i also use with all of these a 2X tele converter a SAKAR 2X AUTO TELE CONVERTER now the d90 is a great camera and does everything that a film camera would do and more form what i can see. Im not a pro but have developed my own film in a home dark room. if you get the d90 you wont be dissapointed. good luck and happy shooting.

[tugboat001]

Ive just recently sold my D80 and have been eyeing up the
D90 , IM just having troubles decideing if I should just buy the
D90 KIT or Just the D90 Body and adding the 18-200mm Lens To it.
and to compliment the the package with the Tonika 11-16 lens. I also
have an interest in the 70-300 VR lens as I would like to shoot sporting
events , would the 18-200mm be suffient for this kind of usage? Or maybe
I should be looking at something inbetween the 18-200mm range? How is the Kit lens supplied with the D90?

buy the kit but make sure you get the lens hood's with it. I love my d90 as it act's like a film camera in most cases. you will not be dissapointed....

[benp]

The 18-105 does have manual focus override, i.e. there is a focus ring you can turn without having to flick a switch first. According to Thom it's actually a partial override system and the camera will "fight" you more. I tend to use it either in manual or in auto mode, but the few times I've used the override it seemed to work as expected. This is probably something you want to try out in a shop before buying it.

The AF feels pretty slow to me, but I don't have something to compare it to. It takes about 1.6s to go from infinity to 0.45m and back. In practice it feels a bit slower than the 50 f/1.8 AF and heaps slower than the 70-300 VR. But in absolute terms it's never actually a problem for me.

The 70-300 VR is great. It's fantastically sharp at the short end, still pretty good at the long end, focuses very quickly, works on full-frame cameras, etc etc. In the UK, however, it's getting close to 3x the price of the 55-200, which is much smaller and lighter and gives pretty much equivalent image quality. (Albeit with noticeably less effective VR, slower focusing and no override or distance gauge.)

Another option might be to get a 3rd-party f2.8 zoom (e.g. Tamron 17-50) plus the 55-200 or 70-300.

[Selfar]

This is my first post and I really need an advice. I have Canon AL1, AE1 and EOS ELAN and some Canon lenses. I started taking photos in 1979 and up to 1996, however, almost stopped in 1997 (marrige, kids and work). I missed a lot and decide to go back to my favorite hoppy. I decided to go for the D90 with the following lenses:
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 G AF-S DX ED VR Nikkor
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor

Usually, in the old days I always get a standard 50mm and a wide angle 28mm. Now i am confused, do i go for a standard wide angle (24mm f/2.8D AF) or go for the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX. Does the 16-85 would do as a good wide angle lens. By the way, i shoot Landscape, portraits, and sometimes flowers and weddings.

Kindly advice if this would be a good kit or just recommend otherwise.

[K1W1]

A Nikon DX DSLR (like the D90) has a 1.5x crop factor. I won't explain but it's easy to find information about crop factors. That means if you want the field of view of a 50mm "standard" lens from film days you need a 35mm lens on a D90.

If you multiply the lens length by 1.5x you will get what you would have had on your film camera.

The downside is that lets say you set your 16-85 (great lens btw) at 35mm you will get a 50mm film field of view but a 35mm depth of focus so there needs to be some compromises made with digital photography and DX bodies.

Your 16mm gets you the field of view of a film 24mm lens.

I think the 16-85 and 70-300 combination is really good and I would be using those and experimenting for some time before I worried about more lenses.

[rawpaw18]

Now with the 1.5x sensor crop on the D90, the 16mm is the new 24mm, the same fov.
Same goes for the 50mm, if that was the prime range you prefered than the 35mm might be for you.

The 10-24 would be substantially wider than what you have had before.

Welcome to the forum.

[rawpaw18]

Richard you type faster than I , and make more sense when you do it!

[K1W1]

Richard you type faster than I , and make more sense when you do it!

Thank you Richard. :D

[Rooz]

Kindly advice if this would be a good kit or just recommend otherwise.

you have a nice kit there. as already pointed out the 16-85 has the same FOV in your film days as a 24-127mm. here's the downside though, the nikkor 16-85 at its wide end of 16mm isnt all that great with a fair amount of distortion. for wide angle landscapes you are best off with one of the following:

nikon 10-24 afs
tokina 11-16mm f2.8

you're standard lens on the d90, (50mm on film), becomes the 35/1.8 nikkor or 35/2 nikkor. both are great...i;d lean towards the 35/1.8.

if it were me i'd be looking at the following:
11-16/2.8 tokina
16-85 nikkor
70-300 nikkor
50/1.4G nikkor for low light weddings and portraits.

[fionndruinne]

You have a nice kit. I would personally let your further choices rest on whether you need ultra-wide-angle, which is one of the zooms you're looking at, or something else. For real low-light use and portraiture, the 50mm f/1.4G that rooz recommends is great. The 35mm f/1.8 is another excellent choice. You seem well-equipped with the zooms that you have; personally I'd look into primes.

[Selfar]

Thank you all for the advice. I believe I got to the right place.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I think the 16-85 and 70-300 combination is really good and I would be using those and experimenting for some time before I worried about more lenses.

I think K1W1 make s a good point here, I have your kit and find it very versatile. It's good enough in my opinion to last you while you think much harder and experiment. BTW when Rooz mentioned 70-300 he meant the VR version.