PDA

View Full Version : D90 Kit vs Body Only



d0od
09-04-2008, 11:59 AM
First post, I have been lurking here for probably a year or more just looking for information.

I had decided to get a D80... Until the D90 came out.:) This will be my first DSLR I have had 2 film slr cameras but after getting my first point and shoot digital I found I didn't have the patience to wait for film anymore, so it has been several years since I really used a SLR.

My question is should I get the D90 kit or just the body? Is the Kit lens worth the $300 or can I get a much better lens for a little more? I was planning on getting a 50mm prime and the body only D90. Is that a good start? What would a 2nd lens recommendation be? No specific type of photography in mind at this point just re-learning how to use a SLR. All the pictures in the Nikon DSLR "Picture Of The Day" forum have really got me excited to get back to it. Thanks for any help!

Rooz
09-04-2008, 12:46 PM
the 18-105 kit lens is getting pretty good reviews. the other option for you is to try and bundle it up as a kit with the 16-85VR. its a better built lens with VRII, (4 stop stabilisation). it is a bit more expensive though.

i wouldnt buy a 50mm prime at the moment cos the release of the nikons updated afs primes is imminent.

ssil2000
09-04-2008, 04:48 PM
but at 100 bux its probably not going to break the bank though, it may be a good interim lens until the afs 50 is released... its a good learning lens!

fionndruinne
09-04-2008, 05:19 PM
It's up to you, but personally I have grown to hate the world of slow kit lenses. The zoom range may be great, but the lack of any low-light capability at all (Nikon's new ISO performance with their CMOS sensor mitigates it somewhat) plus mediocre depth-of-field effect makes them much more for the snapshot enthusiast than the artist.

I'd go with a cheap 50mm and build up from there. No need to wait for an AF-S 50 when the current model is such a sweet deal.

swpars
09-04-2008, 09:19 PM
All you have to do is shoot the kit lens wide to get a fast aperture :D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2823559911_e84dcd3293_b.jpg

This is Alcatraz.

Camera: Nikon D40
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 18 mm
ISO Speed: 450

fionndruinne
09-04-2008, 11:34 PM
F/3.5 ain't fast, and neither is 1/60 sec. Sorry, I just have a certain amount of angst regarding my kit zoom. I'm getting a 50mm f/1.8 though, so you should see me in better form soon.

herc182
09-05-2008, 07:05 AM
It's up to you, but personally I have grown to hate the world of slow kit lenses. The zoom range may be great, but the lack of any low-light capability at all (Nikon's new ISO performance with their CMOS sensor mitigates it somewhat) plus mediocre depth-of-field effect makes them much more for the snapshot enthusiast than the artist.

I'd go with a cheap 50mm and build up from there. No need to wait for an AF-S 50 when the current model is such a sweet deal.

I totally agree with you. However, if you are a newbie then its nice to learn the limitations of a lens...only then do you realise what you could do with (in my case i traded the 18-70 for my sigma 18-50). I miss the range but love the macro capabilities and DOF.

d0od
09-05-2008, 10:11 AM
i wouldnt buy a 50mm prime at the moment cos the release of the nikons updated afs primes is imminent.

Will the new ones be in the same $100 price range? What is the advantage of the afs vs the af? I thought it was just having a motor in the lens, and that I wouldn't have to worry about that by getting a D80 or D90?

Thank you for all your replys. Both of my previous film SLRs were manual focus so it will be nice to have the auto.

cvicisso
09-05-2008, 10:48 AM
The 50/1.8 is a neat lens at an incredible price (I love mine). For 1/3 the cost of the kit lens, you can't go very wrong... almost. If you shoot in alot of tight spaces, the extra reach of the 50mm (75mm equiv) really becomes an albatross. That's unfortnate because indoors is where that f/1.8 really rocks, but that's also exactly where you run into those tight spaces. Catch-22.

So, I guess if you have big rooms in your house it might work out fine. ;)

I'd recommend a f/2.8 wide-tele zoom like herc182's Sigma 18-50 as a really good potential choice. It's [allegedly] not built like a Nikkor, and it'll cost you about 50% more, doesn't have as much reach and is not stabilized like the kit lens, and it is nowhere near as fast as the 50, but it gives you a respectable aperture and zoom range, macro capability, and HSM (like AF-S). If you can afford the extra $$, I think it's a great lens to start out with if you are already envisioning 'expanding' your system in the near future. It lets you skip a few steps (like the 50/1.8) and jump in the semi-deep end right away. I wish I would have done it that way.

herc - what do you think?

cvicisso
09-05-2008, 10:53 AM
Will the new ones be in the same $100 price range? What is the advantage of the afs vs the af? I thought it was just having a motor in the lens, and that I wouldn't have to worry about that by getting a D80 or D90?

Thank you for all your replys. Both of my previous film SLRs were manual focus so it will be nice to have the auto.The AF-S is uber-quick and virtually silent compared to the screw-drive AF. That being said, the screw drive is already pretty darn quick (especially on a prime), and not very loud. I would recommend stopping in your nearby camera store and giving both a test drive if you're worried about it. Oh, and yes - the AF-S will almost certainly cost more than $100. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speculate a guess, but there are plenty of other folks on this forum who I think could.

aparmley
09-05-2008, 01:37 PM
I love kit lenses because people hate them so much. I want to order the new 18-55 VR just to have fun with it!

Heres my humble opinion. Get the kit lens and the 50 1.8. If you can't do both, then just get the kit lens. Why? Because you're bank account will bounce back in the mean time you won't paint yourself in a corner with having only the 50 1.8. Thats how I started - people scared me away from the kit lens so I bought only the 50 1.8. True it is a great learning lens, but you're going to run into plenty of situations where 50mm will not be long enough or wide enough while your waiting for the funds to be replenished. Pop up flash isn't bad either - both can produce excellent results if used properly. I'm not saying anything bad about those that hate the kit lenses, I just think that a lot people focus on the negative aspects of a lens so much that it makes it hard for them to produce anything they consider acceptable with one.

fionndruinne
09-05-2008, 02:44 PM
I used to love my kit lens - it's just that it brought me up against a brick wall, and I don't appreciate it. I've got a 50mm on order.

The kit lens is made to appeal to the point and shoot crowd. It has similar capabilities and limitations to a point and shoot camera - lots of zoom for the size, and hardly any low-light capability aside from bumping your camera's ISO. Since most buy a DSLR to move away from the characteristics of a P&S camera, the only reason I can see for kit lenses being what they are is that a) newcomers will be familiar with what they are capable of, and b) they will spend more money once they realize that other lens choices will provide them with a lot more opportunity.

toriaj
09-05-2008, 06:05 PM
I've had my camera for over two years, and have bought 2 other lenses in the meantime, and I still use the 18-55 (non-VR) kit lens for 90% of my shots. Yes, I do feel its limitations, and yes, I would upgrade it if I had lots of extra cash getting in the way :D but in the meantime, it serves its purpose quite well. Here's a link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/toriaj/tags/kitlens/) to shots I've taken with the 18-55. (They're nearly all landscapes. It's not my fault, Wyoming has the smallest population in the States, you know. :p)

IMO a kit lens is intended for people who are starting out in photography, don't really understand focal length, apertures, etc. It's a decent, all-around lens to get you started. Once you know what you really need, (or if you're already into photography) go out and get the better lenses you'll really use.

aparmley
09-06-2008, 07:08 PM
Fion - you're gonna love that 50 when it shows up.

I think the 18-200s are for those that can't quite let go of their point n shoot mind set. (ducking)

Visual Reality
09-06-2008, 10:04 PM
The 18-200 is a good lens...I couldn't stand the focus field curvature, though. Drove me nuts.

K1W1
09-07-2008, 02:55 AM
I've had my camera for over two years, and have bought 2 other lenses in the meantime, and I still use the 18-55 (non-VR) kit lens for 90% of my shots.

Same here, well maybe not 90% but a lot. My 18-55 has served me well and I'm in no hurry to replace it. In fact I would probably sell my 50mm first. After the initial love for the 50mm I now find I rarely use it. It's to long for a normal lens and not long enough for a telephoto. Sure it does take good photos but really it's the wrong length IMO. I think Rooz's 35mm theory is worth investigating.

Visual Reality
09-07-2008, 12:29 PM
Same here, well maybe not 90% but a lot. My 18-55 has served me well and I'm in no hurry to replace it. In fact I would probably sell my 50mm first. After the initial love for the 50mm I now find I rarely use it. It's to long for a normal lens and not long enough for a telephoto. Sure it does take good photos but really it's the wrong length IMO.
Which is why I went with the 35 f/2...and may get the 85 1.8 later. 50 doesn't make sense for me.

XaiLo
09-07-2008, 03:14 PM
I see a trend here, I remember a young buck not being enamoured with the 'venerable' 50mm. ah that would be me too. :D OK I'll stop... couldn't resist though. If you're going make use of it's focal length then it's a good deal but if it's just going to sit in your bag, ah well.

Rooz
09-07-2008, 03:42 PM
35 and 85 are easier focal lengths to work with on aps-c, (and more useful). but in saying that if you whack a fifty on the camera you just adjust your positioning for the focal length. not that difficult really and considering the quality you can get out of it, its worth the effort imo.

XaiLo
09-07-2008, 04:40 PM
Says the Aussie with the 1.4... that one is a different story. :p

fionndruinne
09-07-2008, 04:40 PM
It turns out I need the 50 (or something like it) for my current "job", photographing some expensive puppies for sale. It might see some use for people photos too... but the 28mm-30mm range is still big. It's too bad the HSM Sigma is $400, and the non-AF-S Nikkor is still $300. I want them like heck, but for a young guy in an economically depressed area working tooth and nail to get ahead, it's just so painfully impractical.

If I had my druthers I'd have a 30mm f/1.4 and a 50-150mm f/2.8 in my arsenal, but it ain't gonna happen.

d0od
10-08-2008, 11:45 AM
Thank you all for your comments. I got my D90 yesterday and decided to get the kit lens, so far I couldn't be more happy. This think makes the best p&s i have ever used seem like a throw away camera. :cool: I will be posting pics as soon as I get some worth posting.