Lens choice - what would you do?

[LudwigVB]

Hello,

I currently own a D90 with three Nikkor lenses:

18-55mm G zoom
55-200mm G zoom
50mm 1.8 D.

I do mainly family outings, indoor/outdoor portraits, landscapes and occasional zoo photos; no sports/action/BIF. These lenses are OK but I'd rather condense them down to two if I can.

I thought of either
(a) selling the two zooms, replacing them with a Sigma superzoom 18-250mm OS Macro and keeping the 50mm; or
(b) selling the 18-55mm and the 50mm, replacing them with a Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and keeping the 55-200mm.

(Unfortunately, the Nikkor superzoom 18-200mm is outside my budget.)
)

I'd be grateful for opinions/advice on whether I should take option (a) or (b), or just stick with what I have. TIA for any replies.

 

[Mike D90]

Whatever I did I would keep the 50mm f/1.8, particularly with y our cropped sensor camera D90. Fine portrait lens and a great all around lens. It would also be your only prime lens in your arsenal.

Of the other two I would probably just keep the one I have the most use for.

I personally was/am not a fan of the 55-200mm lens even though I had the VR version. I just didn't like it much. The 18-55mm was fine but felt kind of cheap and flimsy even though it is said to be surprisingly sharp. My photo style just did not call for much wide angle.

So I sold my 18-55mm and my 55-200mm VR lens and got the 70-300mm VR lens and the 18-70mm "G" ED lens. Just a couple of weeks ago I re-added the 50mm f/1.8 after foolishly selling the excellent copy I had when I bought my camera.

What is your budget before selling any of the lenses? I ask because none of those three lenses listed will bring more than $100 USD each so if you sold all of them you would have a budget of $300 max from just the lens sales.

 

[RON_RIP]

Try the 16-85vr and the 70-300 vr then your almost completely covered,but keep the 50. You will always need a 50. The landscape I shot of Mabry Mill was shot with the 16-85

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Try the 16-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR then you're almost completely covered, but keep the 50mm. You will always need a 50mm.

I wholeheartedly agree with this suggestion.

That combination would make for an awesome, and effective, trio.

.....

 

[gqtuazon]

Hello,

I currently own a D90 with three Nikkor lenses:

18-55mm G zoom
55-200mm G zoom
50mm 1.8 D.

I do mainly family outings, indoor/outdoor portraits, landscapes and occasional zoo photos; no sports/action/BIF. These lenses are OK but I'd rather condense them down to two if I can.

I thought of either
(a) selling the two zooms, replacing them with a Sigma superzoom 18-250mm OS Macro and keeping the 50mm; or
(b) selling the 18-55mm and the 50mm, replacing them with a Tamron 17-50mm non-VC and keeping the 55-200mm.

(Unfortunately, the Nikkor superzoom 18-200mm is outside my budget.)
)

I'd be grateful for opinions/advice on whether I should take option (a) or (b), or just stick with what I have. TIA for any replies.

I have seen just about most photographers who goes through this type of dillema and I can understand your frustration with the 18-55mm since the kit lenses with variable apertures requires more light especially inside the house.

Having been a member of the "been there, done that" guy, I would say stick with what you have for now. Get a good speedlight if you don't have one yet. Tamron is not a bad option it's just a little annoying on how the AF works on that lens.

The path that you are leaning towards will provide temporary satisfaction and you'll be looking for a 35mm f1.8G DX, an ultra wide angle, 85mm f1.8, and so on. I don't know why but that seems to be what most people end up going through. Once you realize that the prime offers better light gattering, you'll venture with the f2.8 lenses which is why I am suggesting to skip it. I would probably save for the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens. A good friend of mine who just got one mentioned that it is sharp throughout the entire focal lenght except that the AF hunts in darker environment.

 

[everprentice]

I have the 35mm 1.8G and I had it for almost 3 years. On a D90 it's a normal lens. It's light, sharp and fast. I did a wedding and I had it one body and a 50/1.8D or my 80-200/2.8D on another. I take it with my 10-20mm UW Siggy during travels. I just got a 17-55 but I don't think I could do without the 35.

 

[LudwigVB]

Thanks for your replies!

Ron and Horoscope Fish I agree that those lenses would be a great solution if only I had that kinda dough. However, I don't, which is why he Nikkor superzoom is also outta reach.

Glenn, I agree with your suggestion - I'll stick with my existing lenses and maybe save up to get an 85mm prime for portraits.

Everprentice, the 25mm is also an interesting possibility.

 

[Bill4282]

I got rid of my 18-55 and went with a 18-105; planning on getting a 70-300 so in the end I'll have: 18-105, 55-200, 70-300 and 50mm f1.8
. could get rid of 55-200 once I get the 70-300 since my lenses would cover most focal lengths.

 

[LudwigVB]

I finally got there (well, almost).

Thanks for your replies!

Ron and Horoscope Fish I agree that those lenses would be a great solution if only I had that kinda dough. However, I don't, which is why he Nikkor superzoom is also outta reach.

I saved up my pennies and got a second hand 16-85mm, which seems perfect. For a long zoom I got a 70-300mm G, an older and coarser lens than the VR but I'm learning how to use it properly.

 

[RON_RIP]

Re: I finally got there (well, almost).

I saved up my pennies and got a second hand 16-85mm, which seems perfect. For a long zoom I got a 70-300mm G, an older and coarser lens than the VR but I'm learning how to use it properly.

Well I think you have made good choices. It is hard to beat the 16-85 and the 70-300 will complete your focal length needs. Now save your pennies for a good micro lens and you will be all set.

 

[LudwigVB]

Re: I finally got there (well, almost).

Well I think you have made good choices. It is hard to beat the 16-85 and the 70-300 will complete your focal length needs. Now save your pennies for a good micro lens and you will be all set.

Hi Ron,

These two lenses are in excellent condition. The D90 seems also to be well able to autofocus indoors with either one, certainly in less light than I can shoot.

I'm not terribly interested in micro work - I hate bugs but there are other subjects, of course. If a bargain came along I'd be tempted.

 

[RON_RIP]

Re: I finally got there (well, almost).

Hi Ron,

These two lenses are in excellent condition. The D90 seems also to be well able to autofocus indoors with either one, certainly in less light than I can shoot.

I'm not terribly interested in micro work - I hate bugs but there are other subjects, of course. If a bargain came along I'd be tempted.

Well I too, "Don't like spiders and snakes" but I find you can get some lovely shots of flowers with a micro lens and the longer ones make good portrait lenses, especially on a dx frame.
I should add that the close minimum focusing distance on the 16-85 gives you an almost macro effect when you zoom out to 85mm.