Best lenses for D 90

[Camila]

I decided to buy the D 90 but I read here that the big question is which lenses should I get with it;
I don't have much expirience but we want to take pictures outdoors / kids indoor / games - like hockey;
my first idea is to buy 2 lenses to start with learn a bit and from there see my needs;

Thank you for your help :)

[fionndruinne]

Ooh, hockey's a hard sport to shoot, because you're dealing with low light and fast action. You're going to want a wide-aperture lens, also it needs to be fairly long. Since you're not going to be on the ice, a 50mm isn't going to cut it. I'd really point to the 80-200mm f/2.8 as being your most affordable lens that'll do hockey.

For indoors shots of kids and such, there are a couple of options. An equivalent to the "standard" lens would be about a 35mm. Nikon has a nice new 35mm f/1.8 for about $200, but it's hard to find right now, and most places that have it are charging more for it. If you want to get kids and their surroundings, or a full-body kind of shot, the 35mm would be good. For closer to actual indoor portraits, a 50mm lens is nice. Nikon has a nice one for a little over $100, it's excellent, especially for the price. They also have a new model with a super-wide f/1.4 aperture, which costs about four times as much.

Alternately, there are a few nice zooms with a larger aperture, making them more appropriate for indoor shooting. Sigma's 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM macro is probably the best affordable option, last I saw it was around $450 US. Nikon has a better 17-55mm f/2.8, but the thing is very pricey.

Anyway, there are some options. Resist the urge to go for "all-in-one wonders" like the 18-200mm VR is you really want to get indoor shots in lower lighting conditions, especially where action is concerned. If you can live with the no-zoom nature of a prime lens, the ones I mentioned are going to be your best bet for affordable and high quality low-light shooting.

[K1W1]

Start with the twin lens 18-55VR and 55-200VR kits. The 55-200 will have the reach for Hockey provided you are near the sideline and it's an inexpensive way to figure out what you really want. The D90 will produce pretty good low light shots at ISO 1600 to compensate for the relatively slow lenses.
If you want more reach the 70-300VR is a very nice lens instead of the 55-200VR but does cost a little more.
The 80-200 whilst not super expensive is a beast and will take a beginer a while to get the hang of simply because of it's weight. If anything it may put you off initially.

[Tomcat]

I agree with KIWI. I use both kit lense's alot and for what you are looking for should work fine. I use the 18-55VR for in the house and pic's of the Grandkids, and for taking pic's of cars. The 55-200VR is the sharpest lense I have. I think it would work great for hockey pic's. Where you are at up in the stands might be dark, but out on the ice the light is pretty bright. I've never took pic's at a hockey game but I have took some concert pic's with no flash and they came out great.
hope this helps.

[fionndruinne]

Trust me, the 55-200mm won't work well for hockey; I needed ISO 1600 @ f/1.8 and 50mm. It is a nice, affordable lens though, so well worth picking up, just don't expect a "miracle on ice" with it :p

[Tomcat]

Have you got any hockey pics you can post in another thread? What kind of shutter speed did you use at ISO 1600?

[Camila]

Thanks very much; I will start from here, go to a shop and test the suggestions;
I know hockey is a difficult subject but i don't need professional pictures; I will see the results that and start to find out my needs;
Again thanks a lot :)

[mugsisme]

I use my Sigma a ton. Today I was at the beach, and used the 70-300 and got some nice shots.

You didn't put what your budget is. I use my Sigma 18-50 in place of the kit lens. It is the one that sits on my camera 99% of the time. I did switch it out recently for the 50mm lens, only because I have been trying for months now to get the 35mm lens. (I need to bite the bullet and just order it from Amazon. I saw that the people who put it in their cart already got it. I have just been lazy to do it.)

You need to look for a low light lens for a fast lens if you want hockey/kids, etc. If you can try the Sigma, do try it. It isn't as great as the Nikon 17-50, but I think it is also half the price. I have a lot of pictures in my flickr album, but the ones at the beach today were the long lens.