Selling D90 -- which new lens?

I am getting ready to sell my D90 and the 18-105mm lens that came with it. I'd like to step up to a little better lens so I was wondering what you might recommend. I've heard good things about the 16-85 and the 55-200. I have a 70-300 I might sell also because I never have a need to use it.

I will mainly be taking flower and garden photos for my articles. Also landscapes. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Also I am thinking of the 5100 because I don't need a lot of whizbangs and I don't care about video. Image quality is my goal (although I know that is mostly in my hands!)

Cheers!

gardenwriter said:

gardenwriter wrote:

I am getting ready to sell my D90 and the 18-105mm lens that came with it. I'd like to step up to a little better lens so I was wondering what you might recommend. I've heard good things about the 16-85 and the 55-200. I have a 70-300 I might sell also because I never have a need to use it.

I will mainly be taking flower and garden photos for my articles. Also landscapes. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Also I am thinking of the 5100 because I don't need a lot of whizbangs and I don't care about video. Image quality is my goal (although I know that is mostly in my hands!)

Cheers!

Click to expand...

If you have a 70-300 that you never use, then you probably will not use the 55-200 much either. Unless you take pictures of things that are really far away, there's not really a need for all that zoom.

Nikon 24-85VR. Sharper than your camera by far on DX.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1526/cat/13

The 16-85VR is good too.

The 60G Micro is phenomenal on flower shots.




60G

If you are going to get the D5100, I recommend you try out various lenses with it at a shop to get a feel for what you might like. You might like the 16-85 or you might find it a bit heavy. You might want to try the feel of the 17-50 2.8 zooms on that particular body. The D5100 is quite a bit lighter than the D90 which might be a good reason to actually get the 55-200/300 type lens. While you have yet to use your 70-300, you might find that a light telephoto is just the thing for flower imagery. I like using my 70-300 to get flower pics. Another thing about the 55-200 is you might find the 55mm a good starting place for your purposes. Good luck.

Thanks Intensity. I used the 70-300 some when I lived on the water in Maryland. Now that I am surrounded by the woods, I don't take it out very much.

Thank you Reilly. I have the 40mm (just received it for my birthday) but haven't had a chance to check it out yet (not many flowers this time of year!)

I will definitely look into the lenses you recommended.

Hi Brev00, I do appreciate your thoughts. I will be going to B&H in New York in about a week and I will look at all the lenses you and Reilly recommended. I think checking out the camera and lenses in person will give me a chance to see which combo feels right. I will report back when I make a selection!

gardenwriter said:

gardenwriter wrote:

I am getting ready to sell my D90 and the 18-105mm lens that came with it. I'd like to step up to a little better lens

Click to expand...

What are the deficiencies in the 18-105 that you want to improve on? Based on Thom Hogan's reviews of the 18-105 and the 16-85 that you mention, it looks like you get less distortion and sharper corners at 18.




Maybe you ought to keep the 18-105, sell the 70-300, and buy a 12-24 if it's more wide that you're looking for.

Hi BobSC, as I was looking at a few of the other Nikons cameras I was considering, I read that the 18-105 was not as desirable as some other lenses in a similar price range. To be honest I can't remember where I saw that comment but I believe it was in a DP Review. Anyway, I thought I'd ask for other recommendations while I'm making up my mind as to what I want to try next.

The 18-105 is a good, competent but not thrilling lens. The 16-85 has a bit better pop.(contrast)

The new 24-85VR would be a slightly better than either for the same $, at the cost of the wide end, obviously.

Be prepared to a big difference between the OVF. Take care to try it before getting rid of D90.

Thanks for the warning baloo_buc.

gardenwriter said:

gardenwriter wrote:

Hi BobSC, as I was looking at a few of the other Nikons cameras I was considering, I read that the 18-105 was not as desirable as some other lenses in a similar price range.

Click to expand...

Those are just matters of opinion based on the writer's criteria. That's good to know, but you should only base your decision on it if you have the same criteria.




Again, what deficiencies do /you/ see. If you don't see any problems, then what are you trying to improve? It could very well be that some of the things those other writers were concerned about don't matter to you. To me, barrel distortion is pretty important, because I like to photograph architecture. To some other people, being able to focus close is important. For some it's shooting in low light. Or sharpness. Or the smoothness of the out of focus areas. Or contrast. Or color. The list goes on.




If there are things you see that you want to improve, then this forum is great at figuring out a good solution, but never buy new camera gear on the nebulous "better" promise.

Thank you for your thoughts, Bob. You bring up some excellent points. I find sharpness is one of the things I am trying to improve. Whether handheld or using a tripod, I sometimes find my flower photos aren't tack sharp. Perhaps it it the lens. Perhaps it is the camera. More likely it is me. But I have worked very hard with this camera and have achieved had the results I'd hoped for.