Nikon D90 Lens qusetion from a newbie

G

gew3201

Guest
Hi I am new around here and have been playing with my D90 for about a year now and I think I want to move up to better and faster glass. I currently have a 18-105mm, 18-200mm, 70-300mm and a 50mm 1.4. I am looking to go with either a 14-24 wide or a 70-200. I am leaning towards the 14-24 and make due with my existing glass for the telephoto until I can move up there as well. I do mostly outdoor shooting and shots of my new grand daughter. Any thoughts or opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
gary
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
818
Location
Texas!
You didn't say what 'mostly outdoor shooting' entails. Depending on that, you might find the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 more useful than the 14-24. The zoom range is approximately equivalent to a 45-105mm on a full-frame camera. The f/2.8 maximum aperture will allow you to shoot in lower light and/or at higher shutter speeds, and to isolate your subject(s) from the background more than your other zooms.

I find 50mm f/1.8 very useful for pictures of our daughter, but a medium range, relatively fast (f/2.8) zoom such as I'm suggesting would also work.

I also 'cheat' by using flash to augment available light:
_2662cr9X98.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The lens part was easy: 50mm f/1.8 @ f/2.4. Shutter speed was 1/30 with the base ISO of 200 on my D90. A Metz 58 (SB-800 equivalent) on camera @ 1/128th power and bounced off the wall / ceiling behind me commanded a Metz 48 (SB-600 equivalent) @ 1/64th power clamped to a bookcase behind Rose and pointed directly at her. A window to her right front provided roundness and shape.

With the lenses you already own, consider some lighting (and spending some time and $$$ learning to use it) before purchasing more glass. Optics capture what's in front of your camera. Light makes photographs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
662
Location
Hollywood, USA
If I were you the 70-300 would do me fine for the long end, but I would definitely need an ultra wide in the 10-20 range. The difference between 10 and 14mm is larger than you think. Ultra wides are a lot of fun. With a crop body, I don't see much use for a 14-24. It's not wide enough to be an ultra wide and it isn't long enough to be a midrange zoom.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
if you are even contemplating a shift to FX in the future, i'd suggest you limit the amount of DX glass you invest in.

the 14-24 is a lovely, if rather exotic and paranoia-inducing, piece of glass. get one ONLY if you intend to move to an FX format camera in the near'ish future (within 5'ish years).
 
G

gew3201

Guest
Re Sambo

Both the lenses I mentioned are full FX compatible so that doesn't pose a problem that I know of


thanks
gary
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
46
Location
Jakarta
I would consider Sigma 8-16, if you wanted a UWA. the 14-24 is wasted on DX I think (unless u were going FX within the next year or so). You can always sell the DX lens in the future.

I hear good things abt the 70-200, and am also thinking of getting the VR1 soon - i have a D90 too. (get VR2, if you are heading to FX territory soon).
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
Both the lenses I mentioned are full FX compatible so that doesn't pose a problem that I know of

well, the question remains: are you planning on an FX upgrade?

if you're NOT planning an FX upgrade, then the 12-24mm DX (?) glass would be a good buy for you for a UWA and a fair bit cheaper than a 14-24.

a 70-200/2.8 is an awesome lens and plays very nicely with DX bodies and FX ones.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
155
Location
562
I'm thinking about heading into FX territory soon, but I'm glad I don't do telephoto work @ night time or low light conditions, so the 70-300VR suits me fine.
 
G

gew3201

Guest
Re: Sambo

I am planning on going the FX direction but not until at least next spring, as I am curious what the next group of bodies coming out will yield. I do so appreciate your knowledge and input.

thanks
gary
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
523
Location
Tokyo
Having graded up from a D90 recently, I would advise you on not investing too much in DX lenses. Once you find your favorite focal length, invest in a good quality FX lens and keep it for a lifetime.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
124
Location
Guam
I am planning on going the FX direction but not until at least next spring, as I am curious what the next group of bodies coming out will yield. I do so appreciate your knowledge and input.

thanks
gary

If you get a 14-24, that is not quite a UWA lens on the D90. And waiting until spring of next year is still quite a long time to upgrade to an FX and means a lot of missed opportunities for nice wide-angle shots if you get an FX UWA for your D90. I would suggest to get something inexpensive for a DX UWA like anything in the used market, or get something that has a high resale value (i.e. Tokina 11-16) so you can recover much of it when it's time for the FX upgrade, or get something inexpensive to go by for the year (i.e. Tammy 12-24).

After the FX upgrade, chances are you will keep the D90 anyway as the crop factor of its APS-C sensor can be useful a lot of times. Also, you will find that the D90 is compact and light in comparison to the FX bodies that it will be an excellent lightweight alternative if you decide not to lug the FX around.

In my opinion, buying a UWA lens for the DX is not really a loss if you decide to upgrade to an FX in the future.

This is based on my point of view, as I still have my D90 (won't sell it) despite having upgraded to a D700. In fact, I am still shopping for a UWA for my D90 as I find it to be an excellent lightweight travel DSLR. It is just a lot lighter than my D700. And if you're wondering, I'm looking at Sigma's 8-16 as my DX UWA.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
6,227
Location
Chicago "burbs"
70-200 hands down. I own both the 70-300 as well as the 70-200 VRII and shoot them both on DX (D300) and FX (D3). The IQ of the 70-200 is in a class by itself. I also own the 14-24 (up for sale) and am parting ways with it because I never really got into shooting UWA. IQ on the 70-200 VRII is spectacular (as well as the VRI) and af is blazing fast. F/2.8 wil allow you to blow out backgrounds to isolate and enhance your subject like you cant with your 70-300.
 
G

gew3201

Guest
Nuclearjock Thanks

just got home from buying the 70-200 VRII and then read your post. Thanks much for your input.

gary
 
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
300
Location
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
well I would stay away from 14-24 on DX body - unless you will get FX down the road. FX glass is expensive but yet its holds its value better then DX. Evaluate your position and make a call but you cant ever have to much FX glass LOL

I would suggesting getting 70-200 VR I and maybe taking a look at nikon 17-55 or Tammy 17-50.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
736
Location
Columbia, MD
I would recommend a 70-200 VR lens. I've been using it on my D90 for portraits, and anything else.

Edit: Nevermind. Congratulations! I know you'll definitely enjoy using that lens.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
52
Location
South Jersey
Excellent decision...I would have done the same thing, and if I had the cash right now I would go get one myself. That lens is my next investment, no doubt. Enjoy.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
1,905
Location
USA
buy a used sigma 10-20 use it for a year until you go FX and then sell at almost no loss. 14mm is not wide enough on DX for true UWA fun. Also its a huge expensive piece of glass. If the fast aspect is important find a used copy of the tokina 11-16 2.8
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom