Reading mode: Light Dark

D90 lens advice please

Go to last post
B

beshannon

Veteran Member
Messages
4,216
Reaction score
67
Location
Northern, VA, US
I have a D90 with a Tamron 18-270 lens. I like to shoot landscapes, architecture, travel photography etc. This lens is fine in good light but the focus tends to hunt and the images get soft in lower light, I have finally realized it needs to go and I want to get a better lens.

I have been looking at the new 28-300 and 24-120 fx lenses from Nikon that are coming out. I would also like to keep the zoom ability as I also have a 35 1.8 Nikkor and a Tokina 11-16 2.8.

Any thoughts on where I should look for a good step up lens for my D90? I have thought about the 24-70 (big and $$$) and the 16-85 as well.

Thanks
 
If you buy either of the two FX lenses I think you'll be spending more money than you need to on lenses that are bigger than you need and you'll still be lacking the wide angle end.
Do you want an all-in one? What is your budget?
The 16~85 VR is probably a good place to start.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
Thanks, the 16-85 is on my list.

I would say that I can cover either of the two new lenses with no problem, the 24-120 being advertised at a MSRP of $1299.00, so I guess that is my budget.
 
beshannon said:
I would say that I can cover either of the two new lenses with no problem, the 24-120 being advertised at a MSRP of $1299.00, so I guess that is my budget.
Click to expand...
But is that your whole budget going on one lens that doesn't give you wide angle (or much reach)?
For the same money you could get a 16~85 and 70~300 VR
or a 18~200 VR mk2
or a fast kit.... Tamron 17~50 f2.8 and Sigma 50~150 f2.8.

The 24~120 VR will be my next lens, but if that is your entire budget it seems a waste on DX. We will have to wait and see, but why spend all the extra money and have a heavier lens over the 16~85 VR. Filters will cost more too..... 77mm vs 67mm.

If you had a bigger budget and planned to add a 16~35 Vr I could understand. Later you could move to FX quite easily.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
I use to own the tokina 11-16 but the CA and the way it handled direct light drove me bannana's. Have you consider selling this and the 35 to get a 14-24? It lives up to it's reputation I can tell you!
 
Vertigon said:
I use to own the tokina 11-16 but the CA and the way it handled direct light drove me bannana's. Have you consider selling this and the 35 to get a 14-24? It lives up to it's reputation I can tell you!
Click to expand...
Now that is a thought and I would not be opposed to that, thanks.
 
slimandy said:
But is that your whole budget going on one lens that doesn't give you wide angle (or much reach)?
For the same money you could get a 16~85 and 70~300 VR
or a 18~200 VR mk2
or a fast kit.... Tamron 17~50 f2.8 and Sigma 50~150 f2.8.

The 24~120 VR will be my next lens, but if that is your entire budget it seems a waste on DX. We will have to wait and see, but why spend all the extra money and have a heavier lens over the 16~85 VR. Filters will cost more too..... 77mm vs 67mm.

If you had a bigger budget and planned to add a 16~35 Vr I could understand. Later you could move to FX quite easily.
Click to expand...
Well I have the Tokina 11-16 for wide angle.

I thought about the 18-200. As far as spending my whole budget (for now) on a single lens, that does not bother me as much as not having a good piece of glass, which I don't have now. I have 77mm filters already for the Tokina.

Thanks for the thoughts, I am looking at this as many ways as I can.
 
Some decent to great lenses to consider that won't kill your wallet

Nikon 35 1.8
Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5
Nikon 70-210 4-5.6
Nikon 300/4 AF

and one that hurts a little more, the 17-55 2.8

I agree with other posters that the new 24-120 and 28-300 probably wouldn't be the best idea. I like the idea of 16-85 also if the range is wide enough and long enough for 95 percent of your shots.

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

No that TC won't work with that lens, and no you're not getting that camera/lens at
that price.

Equipment in profile
 
Chuck Yadmark said:
Some decent to great lenses to consider that won't kill your wallet

Nikon 35 1.8
Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5
Nikon 70-210 4-5.6
Nikon 300/4 AF

and one that hurts a little more, the 17-55 2.8

I agree with other posters that the new 24-120 and 28-300 probably wouldn't be the best idea. I like the idea of 16-85 also if the range is wide enough and long enough for 95 percent of your shots.

--
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have the 35 1.8 already. The 16-85 is still a good possibility.

I'll keep reading, appreciate all the suggestions.
 
Your camera opens up the lens to the maximum aperture for autofocus and then closes it down to the set aperture for the shot when the shutter is released. Lenses with a maximum aperture of f5.6 when zoomed all the way out do not provide enough light to the camera's autofocus sensors.

The fix is to get f2.8 zooms like a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 17-55mm f2.8 or focus manually in low light. Smaller apertures are part of the price one pays for trying to get by with only one or two lenses - i.e. no free lunch. Small apertures results in poorer autofocus performance and accuracy regardless of the camera you use but is worse with cameras that have only a single cross type AF sensor.
 
Regardless of VR lenses, in low light for scenic shooting I suggest a tripod or at the least a monopod. Often manually focusing is a must.

In DX I use several different lenses for scenic shooting and have learned that my style about 75% of the time doesn't take me to the ultra wide range. A Tamron 24-135SP will do most of it for me, even though I've used lenses from the Sigma 15-30 and Nikon 17-55 out to the Nikon 70-200 VR1. At any rate, if I get stuck hand holding at sunrise for instance, I'm going to make a lesser image than if the camera was on a pod regardless of VR or not, at least in terms of sharpness. I suggest the same will hold true for most other people as well.

I bring this up because of your landscape interest. I think the suggestion for the 17-50 and 50-150 is a very good suggestion as well. Sharp clear glass with easier viewing in low light. I'd also consider some AI options, course I often hand held meter ( separate hand held meter) , so I don't care if the camera can't meter. But good AI lenses give the best slow hand focusing ability for maual focus situations.

Keep the VR lenses for walking around in the streets for everyday shooting etc.. Landscape and scenic is a different world.

Just an added though.

David
 
calson said:
Your camera opens up the lens to the maximum aperture for autofocus and then closes it down to the set aperture for the shot when the shutter is released. Lenses with a maximum aperture of f5.6 when zoomed all the way out do not provide enough light to the camera's autofocus sensors.

The fix is to get f2.8 zooms like a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 17-55mm f2.8 or focus manually in low light. Smaller apertures are part of the price one pays for trying to get by with only one or two lenses - i.e. no free lunch. Small apertures results in poorer autofocus performance and accuracy regardless of the camera you use but is worse with cameras that have only a single cross type AF sensor.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation, I am embarassed to admit that I did not know that.
 
David Grabowski said:
Regardless of VR lenses, in low light for scenic shooting I suggest a tripod or at the least a monopod. Often manually focusing is a must.

In DX I use several different lenses for scenic shooting and have learned that my style about 75% of the time doesn't take me to the ultra wide range. A Tamron 24-135SP will do most of it for me, even though I've used lenses from the Sigma 15-30 and Nikon 17-55 out to the Nikon 70-200 VR1. At any rate, if I get stuck hand holding at sunrise for instance, I'm going to make a lesser image than if the camera was on a pod regardless of VR or not, at least in terms of sharpness. I suggest the same will hold true for most other people as well.

I bring this up because of your landscape interest. I think the suggestion for the 17-50 and 50-150 is a very good suggestion as well. Sharp clear glass with easier viewing in low light. I'd also consider some AI options, course I often hand held meter ( separate hand held meter) , so I don't care if the camera can't meter. But good AI lenses give the best slow hand focusing ability for maual focus situations.

Keep the VR lenses for walking around in the streets for everyday shooting etc.. Landscape and scenic is a different world.

Just an added though.

David
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have both a tripod and monopod and I am understanding that I do not need the range. Good suggestions, I will look at those lenses as well.
 
beshannon said:
I have a D90 with a Tamron 18-270 lens. I like to shoot landscapes, architecture, travel photography etc. This lens is fine in good light but the focus tends to hunt and the images get soft in lower light, I have finally realized it needs to go and I want to get a better lens.

I have been looking at the new 28-300 and 24-120 fx lenses from Nikon that are coming out. I would also like to keep the zoom ability as I also have a 35 1.8 Nikkor and a Tokina 11-16 2.8.

Any thoughts on where I should look for a good step up lens for my D90? I have thought about the 24-70 (big and $$$) and the 16-85 as well.

Thanks
Click to expand...
I would suggest you drop the FX lenses unless you have FX plans. Landscape does not need super wide aperture. The 16-85 + 70-300vr is a better combo than what you have. Add a 35mm f1.8g for low light and that trio will serve you better than the FX lenses for your intended use. And raise the image quality over your current lens.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
If you have FX plans, my suggestions:

Sigma 12-24 HSM
Nikon 24-70 f2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR

For macro: 105 f2.8 micro VR

These ones cover nearly eveyrthing you need...
 
Cenk said:
If you have FX plans, my suggestions:

Sigma 12-24 HSM
Nikon 24-70 f2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR

For macro: 105 f2.8 micro VR

These ones cover nearly eveyrthing you need...
Click to expand...
Thanks, i would really like to get the 24-70, my local shop has one in stock. I am simply trying to decide how much I want to anger my wife! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top