Ordering D90 soon.. need help with lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CarlsonCustoms, Jan 9, 2009.

  1. CarlsonCustoms macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #1
    Well I'm selling my D60 with kit 18-55 and upgrading to a D90.

    I plan on getting the body only and getting two lenses to start. I know the first will be the ever popular 50/f1.8 which is around $110

    My other lens is where I need help. I can budget around $500 but can go up a tad if its worth it.

    I'd really like to do some macro work. I don't want to buy crappy lenses that I'll have to upgrade later so I'd rather just buy one good lens now. I was kinda looking at the 18-200 which is $618 becuase it covered a wide range which I thought would be useful but then I look at some primes to use for macro.

    Any help available?

    Zack
     
  2. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #2
    Your macro options are the Nikon 105mm Micro (VR and non VR versions), 60mm Micro and the 100ish mm Sigma, Tamron and Tokina macro lenses.

    The 18-200mm is good but not great. Its also pretty expensive for what it is. The 18-105mm VR that comes bundled with the D90 is also very well regarded and much cheaper; it would leave you some left over for a macro lens.
     
  3. CarlsonCustoms thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #3
    Those were the macros I was looking at and the 105 seems to be around $700 and the 60 around $400.. is the extra 45mm worth the extra $300?

    How is the quality of non-nikon lenses? Also this sounds dumb but a 105mm macro lens works fine in non closeup situations right?

    I was going by KenRockwells 18-200 review which he gushes about it (i know he's not highly reguarded here)

    I was also reading about how the kit 18-105 wasn't that great so that's why I was forgoing that lens altogether and buying what I want right off the bat.

    Thanks for the quick reply though
    Zack
     
  4. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    Ken Rockwell is an idiot and a lousy gearhead. He's a pretty good photographer. Please don't base any of your gear decisions on his ramblings - many of the things he reviews, he has never even held. If you're looking for good places to photograph or good cars to buy, he's not a bad choice.

    Those are two different lenses. If you need a 60mm lens, you need a 60mm lens. If you need 105, you need 105. The Non-VR 105mm Micro is less than $400 used, so that's an alternative.

    The non-Nikon lenses are excellent. They are extremely sharp and very well regarded.

    The 18-105mm is an excellent lens. It is sharper than the 18-200mm VR but lacks 95mm of range.

    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1221/cat/13
     
  5. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #5
    I would go to buydig.com and see what they're selling the D90 / 18-105 kit for. A few weeks ago, it was $1035. Then...with your budget, I would get the Tamron 90mm macro...great for portraits too.

    It's a personal thing, but I just don't like the 50mm (especially on apsc) FOV or find it very useful. Pretty flat and boring DoF cues imo. For primes, I prefer getting the 35 f2 (or 24 f2.8) and 85 1.8 on your budget....skipping the 50 altogether.

    Check Nikonians.org and nikongear.com classified sections. I saw a 18-70 last week for $100...great value.

    The D90 is great...enjoy!
     
  6. CarlsonCustoms thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    #6
    Thanks for the suggestions! I'm going to order through amazon at a price of $1099 as of this typing, yeah its a tad more expensive but I love amazon and I'm ordering around $1300 of stuff and its all free shipping and through one vendor which I love.

    I took Taylors' advice and got some macro tubes from ebay to just give macro a go before plunking down $$$ on a true macro lens.

    We'll see how it goes.
     
  7. jaseone macrumors 65816

    jaseone

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Houston, USA
    #7
    Trust me you won't be disappointed with the 18-105, a lot of people like to put it down on the forums as it is a kit lens and advise to stay well clear of it, but I think it is a great all round lens. It isn't quite as versatile as the 18-200 but I think it is a good compromise between sharpness and reach not to mention cost, if I want more reach then I can swap to the 70-300 and such situations are fairly specialized so I don't miss the moment by swapping lenses.
     
  8. kayes macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #8
    I have both the 18-200 VR and the 18-105 VR. I prefer the 18-105. Such a sweet lens.
     
  9. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    I just bought the same kit from Amazon and it came in today! I decided to go with the Amazon card and I got an additional $30 off (next purchase) and no payments or interest if I pay it off in one year.

    So far the camera seems pretty sweet. The last Nikons I owned were an N90 and F4s. This one seems not as solid as those older cameras and has a slight plastic feel to some of the body parts. I guess time will tell if it will hold up to normal use. Other than that, I'm pretty stoked.
     
  10. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #10
    I'd say none of the above and suggest one of the 17-50 f/2.8 lenses (Tamron or Tokina are IMO the best choices). They'll give you a lot more creative freedom and cover the most-used focal lengths.
     
  11. hogfaninga macrumors 65816

    hogfaninga

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    Chestnut Tree Cafe
    #11
    I have both the 18-105 and 18-200. The 18-200 is a much better lens IMO. Construction wise, versatility wise, and overall picture quality it is much better. Most people I know agree with this (who have both lenses) and if you visit the major Nikon boards (for real life comparisons) that is the majority opinion as well. Really surprised by some recommending the 18-105 over the 18-200 (even for the price difference it is worth it). I selling my below average kit 18-105 lens soon (I have owned numerous Nikon lenses and this one is not Nikon quality IMO). The additional $250-300 for the 18-200mm is well worth it in my opinion.

    Is the 18-200 great? Nope, but it a pretty good lens overall especially compared to the 18-105 (keep in mind Nikon wanted a do it/be it all lens for the consumer and it does a pretty good job--I got other Nikon lenses, but this one and my 50mm 1.4 stays on my D90 most of the time) Overpriced? Well I think, as do most, most Nikon lenses are overpriced(except the 50 1.8 maybe). Kind of like buying a Mac. You pay more and it is up to the buyer if they think it is worth it.

    Here is a fair review of the 18-200 (keep in mind there are literally hundreds of reviews of the 18-200 and 18-105--most agree the 18-200 is a very nice lens):

    http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm (The street price of the 18-200mm is now $620 I think. His review is a little old--also keep in mind he is reviewing the VR version and the VR II is out now--still a good review).

    Good luck and have fun with the D90. It is a great camera.
     
  12. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #12
    The 60mm AF-S macro lens is a great one. It has trouble with the D300, but that won't be a problem for you. Of course, you probably don't want to get both the 50mm and 60mm lenses, or else you'd have the same problem I had (overlapping glass).
     

Share This Page