Nikon D90 - basic set of lenses

[maryquitecontrary54]

I have a Nikon d90. Used to shoot Nikon film with a 6006 (obviously a long time ago), then my husband bought me a Canon EOS20D which was top of the line at the time. After a respectable amount of time using that camera, I am using it as a backup and bought myself a Nikon D90. So far, the only lenses I have are my old film lenses that are compatible, but I want to gradually upgrade. This is what I have now: Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm (1.4-5.6D) and a Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm (1:3.3 - 4.5). It seems that I am constantly changing lenses, so I would like something AF between these two/overlapping as my first purchase. A priority is a lens that would be good with low light since I will be the first to admit I have always had issues with lighting regardless of the flash I use (using my old flash as well - Nikon SB 26).

I am a professional graphic designer, but don't pretend to be a pro photographer, so please, no snide comments about the existing setup - I know it has limitations, I just need some help with upgrading going forward - will stay with Nikon from here out so I don't want to spend a fortune, but I want something that I will be happy with in the future.
Thanks so much for any suggestions you might have!

 

[apiron]

I have a Nikon d90. Used to shoot Nikon film with a 6006 (obviously a long time ago), then my husband bought me a Canon EOS20D which was top of the line at the time. After a respectable amount of time using that camera, I am using it as a backup and bought myself a Nikon D90. So far, the only lenses I have are my old film lenses that are compatible, but I want to gradually upgrade. This is what I have now: Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm (1.4-5.6D) and a Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm (1:3.3 - 4.5). It seems that I am constantly changing lenses, so I would like something AF between these two/overlapping as my first purchase. A priority is a lens that would be good with low light since I will be the first to admit I have always had issues with lighting regardless of the flash I use (using my old flash as well - Nikon SB 26).

I am a professional graphic designer, but don't pretend to be a pro photographer, so please, no snide comments about the existing setup - I know it has limitations, I just need some help with upgrading going forward - will stay with Nikon from here out so I don't want to spend a fortune, but I want something that I will be happy with in the future.
Thanks so much for any suggestions you might have!

I'm really surprised you are not asking about wider lenses, 35mm on the D90 is the equivalent of 52mm on your 6006, that is : not wide at all.

Tell us what kind of things you shoot and we might be able to help you better !

 

[Bjorn_L]

I have a Nikon d90. Used to shoot Nikon film with a 6006 (obviously a long time ago), then my husband bought me a Canon EOS20D which was top of the line at the time. After a respectable amount of time using that camera, I am using it as a backup and bought myself a Nikon D90. So far, the only lenses I have are my old film lenses that are compatible, but I want to gradually upgrade. This is what I have now: Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm (1.4-5.6D) and a Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm (1:3.3 - 4.5). It seems that I am constantly changing lenses, so I would like something AF between these two/overlapping as my first purchase. A priority is a lens that would be good with low light since I will be the first to admit I have always had issues with lighting regardless of the flash I use (using my old flash as well - Nikon SB 26).

I am a professional graphic designer, but don't pretend to be a pro photographer, so please, no snide comments about the existing setup - I know it has limitations, I just need some help with upgrading going forward - will stay with Nikon from here out so I don't want to spend a fortune, but I want something that I will be happy with in the future.
Thanks so much for any suggestions you might have!

The Sigma 50-150 f2.8 seems the obvious answer to your asked question. But I would suggest a different line up completely.

I shot canon for a while and then got a Nikon d90 too. I tried A LOT of lenses before settling on a few favorites. Remember a Digital camera like a Nikon d90 has a smaller sensor than a film camera. In the case of the the d90, this gives a crop-factor of 1.5. So the field of view from a 50mm is the same as the FOV you got from a 80mm on film. This means that to cover the standard "slightly-wide to slightly-tele" range you need a much wider lens.

Standard zoom.
Either the Nikon 18-105vr better value
Nikon 16-85vr better quality, and my personal favorite.
Other options include:
The super cheap kit lens (18-55vr, very sharp and very light weight)

The f2.8 upgrades to the kit lens from Nikon (17-55 f2.8), Sigma(17-50os f2.8 or Tamron(17-50vc f2.8). The Tamron and Sigma are stabilized, the Nikon is not; then stabilization on a fast, wide lens is not always super important since you will generally get good enough shutter speed, but it can be handy as it allows shooting images of still-life in low light at 1/4 to 1/8 the shutter speed and still getting sharp images.

Low light:

Depends on preferred focal length. I had both a 35 f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.8 on the d90. I found I did most of my shots with the 35mm since that FL gave me the FOV I found most useful. I would often wish it was just slightly wider. Nikon recently released a 28mm f1.8 which would have been perfect for me on the d90. But the 28mm is much more expensive, so don't buy that one until you know you want it. Sigma has some reasonably priced alternatives. f1.8 = 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, f1.4 = 30mm , 50mm 85mm.

Long lens:
Nikon 70-300vr f4.5-5.6 (same FOV as a 105-450mm on film)

"tweener" lens I really liked was the above named Sigma 50-150 f2.8 lens. Small, fast and lovely out of focus areas (bokeh)

Flash: travel flash = sb400. Every day use = sb600 or sb700
.
.
.

I found that the combination of a better standard lens for every day combined with a flash when possible in low light or a fast-prime (f1.8 or f1.4) only when I wanted maximum quality and knew the exact focal length to use or I needed much more light than even a f2.8 lens can gather. Remember a f1.4 lens is two full stops larger aperture then even a f2.8 lens. 2 stops = 4 times as much light to the sensor. This worked much better for me for low light than f2.8 lenses. Obviously the best would be to have both fast primes and f2.8 lenses, but that can be very expensive.

Enjoy your d90, it is a super good camera.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

 

[Skipper494]

The Nikon 20mm f/2.8 would be useful or even the Tamron 18-270.

 

[bugzie]

Your old 35-70mm is not really designed to be particularly useful on a cropped sensor digital camera. The effective focal lengths are 52-105mm: "normal" to moderate telephoto. Once upon a time 35-70mm zooms were the bee's knees. Now they're not particularly fashionable. Partly because of the crop factor with many modern digital cameras but also because people like to have the option of going much wider.

As others have suggested, pick yourself up a modern 18-55mm kit lens for a song. See if this range is useful for you. Once you work out the focal lengths you favor, you can then invest in a low-light prime or two. At the moment, you have nothing wide or even wide-ish. Primes are a great way of picking up cracking lenses for relatively little cash.

As for changing lenses, you could look at super-zooms. I have the 18-200mm Nikkor and even though it's far from a great lens, I do use it quite a lot. I do think it's expensive for what it is. Tamron and Sigma make some super-zooms too that are probably better value. I still change lenses, tho. Super-zooms can be handy but they aren't the final solution. Also, some people will think you're not a serious photographer if you use these types of lenses. They don't have much street cred. ;-)

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

I am not asking about any specific lens, I am asking for suggestions based on what I already have and what might complement that. I don't just shoot one type of thing. I shoot a lot of different things for different purposes. I shoot kids and horses and dogs and flowers, and sports and landscapes, etc for fun and while traveling.....and since I am a graphic designer, I sometimes shoot things I use in ads or brochures - food, hotel swimming pools, wedding decor, people having a drink at a bar, etc.....

That's the point I was trying to make. I would like to build on what I have and eventually own decent collection of lenses. It seems that I am frequently looking for something to shoot at a distance that is neither close up nor far away - that's why I asked about something in the middle, but I am open to any suggestions, and if you think I might need something wider, please suggest that.

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

Thanks so much! All very valuable information - sounds like you did a lot of legwork that I can benefit from.
I will check out all of this, and figure out where to start.

I do understand the difference in the film vs. digital lenses. I was just being cheap - buying the camera first and using what I already had. Not the best way to go about it, but with limited funds, that's what I had to do. I do love the D90 and Nikon in general so I'm not changing again!
Thanks!

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

Thanks. As I said, I know what I have isn't ideal or I wouldn't be asking for help.

Not sure I want to go with a "kit lens". Not looking for top of the line, but I don't want to get something that I will be replacing if I like the length either. I do appreciate the suggestions and I will look at that length and the zoom you mentioned.

Thanks for your help.

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

Thanks for the suggestions!

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

Re: your last comment - I understand what you mean about not being taken seriously, but that is one thing I don't worry about. Doesn't matter to me what others think - I try not to take myself too seriously. That is why I put this under "beginner questions" even though I have been a photographer of some level or another for about 40 years. I am not really a beginner, but I'm not a pro either and I appreciate any help I can get. You can't know too much.

I just want to learn about what is new and most effective and how to use it (within my budget). If that means buying a super zoom (for one - not for every purpose) then so be it I will check that out along with the other suggestions.
Thanks again!

 

[apiron]

I am not asking about any specific lens, I am asking for suggestions based on what I already have and what might complement that. I don't just shoot one type of thing. I shoot a lot of different things for different purposes. I shoot kids and horses and dogs and flowers, and sports and landscapes, etc for fun and while traveling.....and since I am a graphic designer, I sometimes shoot things I use in ads or brochures - food, hotel swimming pools, wedding decor, people having a drink at a bar, etc.....

That's the point I was trying to make. I would like to build on what I have and eventually own decent collection of lenses. It seems that I am frequently looking for something to shoot at a distance that is neither close up nor far away - that's why I asked about something in the middle, but I am open to any suggestions, and if you think I might need something wider, please suggest that.

Difficult problem, you shoot everything, and want to minimize swapping lenses (I assume in some situations, not in general).

I'd get a superzoom (18-200 or something like that) for when swapping lenses is not convenient, a 35mm F1.8 when you want to have fun in really low light or play with shallow DOF - it's a cheap lens of very high optical quality, and maybe a fast zoom (17-50 F2.8) when you want to travel light and have a general lens for low light situations.

 

[cjnielsen_nz]

Thanks. As I said, I know what I have isn't ideal or I wouldn't be asking for help.

Not sure I want to go with a "kit lens". Not looking for top of the line, but I don't want to get something that I will be replacing if I like the length either. I do appreciate the suggestions and I will look at that length and the zoom you mentioned.

Thanks for your help.

You may not want to go with a kit lens, but the 35-70 you had is one of the worst lenses Nikon ever made, you would not be trying very hard to do better than that. The 70-210 you have is a good one from what I read.

 

[lnguyenh]

I own a d90, and have 3 lenses so far. The 18-105, a 35mm prime and a 50mm prime. Here are some comments I have in reaction to your original post.

To decide what lens you should buy, and in which order, I think you need to take time to think carefully about what YOU want to achieve. If there are different things, try to prioritize them. For example maybe you feel you need a wider lens, but also you would like to get shallow depth of fields when shooting protraits. You feel you want shallow depth of fields most, then buy (for example) a fast prime lens. Then later you ll buy a wide angle lens.

Owning a "decent set of lenses" is useless if you dont have a real use for all the lenses you have. I suspect it was not your intention, but reading your first post, it could be understood this way.

If you need to swap lenses a LOT, then maybe a 18-105 or a 18-200 lens would be good for you.

You mention a SB26 flash, and you admit not knowing how to use it well. Then I have to direct you to the site http://www.strobist.com . I have learnt a lot from this site, and from others sources that I wouldnt have checked if it wasnt for this site.

Low light always involve choices. You mention "lenses good in low light". You must think about lenses that can open wide, like fast primes, or zoom with a constant (wide) max aperture across the range. But you have to remember that if you use these lenses, in low light, it often involves using a wide aperture, and you dont always want a shallow depth of field, and the image quality is not always the best wide open etc...

So for low light, it is a combination of body and lenses. Recent bodies allow to push the ISO quite a bit, and they make a big difference in low light.

The d90 is decent (but not great) for this, and I personally often use iso 1600 or 3200 if I dont want to use flash, knowing that the image quality wont be as good as iso 200, but it allows to get the shot.

Indoors without flash, I almost never use anymore the 18-105 lens. I only use my primes.

Then, to answer more directly to your questions, here are a few lenses that you could think about, based on what you want to achieve the most:

• 18-105 : to fix your lens swapping issue.
• a fast prime: 35, 50, 85mm? for shallow depth of fields, and more flexibility when shooting in low lihjt.
• something wider (under 30mm) : 18-55 kit for example
• something even wider : 11-16, 12-24, etc... for landscapes, wide angle effects
• some fast zoom : 18-55 f2.8, 12-24 f 2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f 2.8 (costly).

 

[sterretje]

I'm not a Nikon shooter, but I understand that the 18-105 is well regarded. It will replace your 35-70 and you will only swap lenses if you really need the extra focal length of the 70-210 (which probably is not that often).

At a later stage you can determine what the next lenses need to be:

• something wider
• something faster
• something longer

Or maybe you don't feel the need for any other lenses.

--
WimS

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

Thanks! Yall have been really helpful. I have been shopping around and also found some sites where they shoot the same image with different lenses so that you can see the difference. I am a very visual person, so that kind of thing is most helpful.
Appreciate it!

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

I really appreciate all of the information I am getting, but I think maybe you are focusing too much on my comment about swapping lenses. Why have more than one lens if you don't ever change lenses? That isn't my main issue - it just seemed to me that something was missing in between the two I have because I rarely shoot anything using the long end of the zoom (200) and the 35-70 definitely isn't long enough, (or wide enough as you pointed out - something I hadn't thought much about, but that could definitely be helpful ).

I know I won't get everything in one lens. Just trying to decide where to spend my limited funds first, so I am making a wish list.

Your suggestions are in agreement with some others I have received. I have narrowed it down to 2 or 3 - now it is just a matter of getting the best deal (which could make my decision for me).
Thanks so much for responding!

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

I understand your point - the 35-70 is the "kit lens" that came with the 6006 when I bought it many moons ago - don't necessarily want to go down that road again.

I do love my 70-200, but I used the zoom a lot more when my kids were playing sports or riding horses and I was shooting from a distance. Also used it for zooming in on a rose or something like that - nice effect (my mom grew roses).
I guess what I am shooting changes as my life changes?
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Appreciate your comments.

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

Thanks for your suggestions.

Re: my comment about a "basic set of lenses". I can tell you what I have shot in the past, but I have found that as my life changes, the things that I am interested in shooting changes as well. I don't think I will ever be focused on shooting just a few things, and I can't tell you what I will be shooting in the future. I can tell you that I doubt I will ever be focused only on one type of photography. I am a graphic designer, not a photographer, but I sometimes use my photography in my designs/ads, so I would like to have "decent" equipment for a variety of circumstances - both personal and professional.

I would equate what I want to a set of golf clubs - most golfers probably only use a third of the clubs in their bag - that's what I am looking for - that third that most people go to most often so that I will have lenses to cover a variety of situations. I realize there are a lot of photographers who are purists and might find that odd or offensive, but that is what I want.

I don't think I said that I don't know how to use my flash - what I said was "I will be the first to admit I have always had issues with lighting regardless of the flash I use (using my old flash as well - Nikon SB 26)". I don't think any photographer would say that he/she hasn't had issues with lighting at one time or another - or even frequently. It is a challenge - especially when you are using a 15 year old flash.

I would like to have a lens that I can use inside in low lighting and get acceptable results. For example - many churches don't allow flashes, and that is a problem when the existing lighting is limited to candles and what comes through the stained glass windows. Not necessarily for weddings - for all types of ceremonies.

I will look at the site you mentioned because I can always learn something, but I will probably be upgrading my flash at some point - it is a little lower down on my priority list than a new lens or two.
Thanks for your comments and the suggestions at the end of your post.
I appreciate your help!

 

[maryquitecontrary54]

I have another question related to your earlier response, because yours made the most sense to me. I thought I understood the relationship between digital and film lenses, but maybe not.

If I am reading it correctly, you said that the ratio of a digital lens to film lens is about 50mm to 80mm (crop factor of about 1.5)when used with my D90 (due to the smaller sensor as opposed to using it with a full frame digital camera). Since I am only interested in the D90 right now, if you apply that ratio to my existing film lenses, you would get (if there were such an animal) about 22-44 (digital lens) for my 35-70(film) and about 44-131 for my 70-210.

Am I calculating this correctly? or am I missing something which is entirely possible?

The reason I am asking is that if my 35-70 is approximately equal to 22-44, wouldn't I need a digital lens wider than 22 (if used with my D90) to get the wider FOV that others were suggesting I needed?
Thanks for your patience with my questions!

 

[apiron]

Don't go that way, it's much too confusing.

Your 35-70mm lens put on a digital camera gives you the same field of view as a 52-105 lens on a film camera, as I mentioned earlier: not wide at all.

The focal lengths are always absolute values on DSLR cameras, no need to speak about digital and non digital lenses.

I have another question related to your earlier response, because yours made the most sense to me. I thought I understood the relationship between digital and film lenses, but maybe not.

If I am reading it correctly, you said that the ratio of a digital lens to film lens is about 50mm to 80mm (crop factor of about 1.5)when used with my D90 (due to the smaller sensor as opposed to using it with a full frame digital camera). Since I am only interested in the D90 right now, if you apply that ratio to my existing film lenses, you would get (if there were such an animal) about 22-44 (digital lens) for my 35-70(film) and about 44-131 for my 70-210.

Am I calculating this correctly? or am I missing something which is entirely possible?

The reason I am asking is that if my 35-70 is approximately equal to 22-44, wouldn't I need a digital lens wider than 22 (if used with my D90) to get the wider FOV that others were suggesting I needed?
Thanks for your patience with my questions!