Lens for Nikon D90?

[hogan18]

I am very new to photography and purchased a Nikon D90.I have a 18-105 lens that came with D90. I am looking at getting AF VR 70-300 but am wondering do I need a 300? Instead I'm thinking about getting rid of my 18-105 and buying the 18-200 AF VR Dx lens? I like to shoot landscape, kids, kid sports. I thought this would be a good walk around everyday lens. I would like feedback from what lens appear to be everyones favorites and what my idea sounds like?

[jerryph]

Hi Hogan, thanks for posting here where everyone can benefit.

There are a couple of unwritten rules in photography. One of them is:

"In photography, we buy our lenses and lighting once... all other accessories, including the camera body shall likely be replaced or upgraded. However, a good lens in the 70's is STILL a good lens today. The same is said of lighting equipment."

No one knows what your needs are better than you. If you do not know what they are... don't purchase anything until YOU know. From there, always buy the very best that you can afford.

Having said that... the 18-105, 70-300 and 18-200 are all middle of the line lenses in terms of quality, the best of the lot being IMHO the 18-200.

When I started out, the 18-200 was one of the first lenses that I purchased and I was very satisfied with it. Being that it is known as a "super-zoom" or a lens with great focal range, it has incredible versatility. The Nikkor 18-200 is THE most versatile lens on the market, bar none. The quality level is the best in this class.

However:
- It is very soft at either end of it's focal point lengths
- It vignettes, at the 200mm range, quite strongly
- It is a relatively slow lens, meaning it is not very good in low light

The first two of these traits are easily addressable in post process, and the 3rd may not be an issue for you if you do not take pictures in darker locations without any additional lighting, but you should be aware if it before you make any choice.

THIS (http://flickr.com/photos/jerryph/sets/72157604136892371/show/) series of pictures was all done on my Nikon D200 and the Nikon 18-200 lens.

Anytime you take such a large range, you are going to have to accept performance compromises.

Me, I own this lens, and like it a lot... however, when best performance or maximum results are desired, this lens comes off and is replaced with either the Sigma F/2.8 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro and/or the Nikkor F/2.8 70-200 VR.

[pauld]

I am looking at getting AF VR 70-300 but am wondering do I need a 300? Instead I'm thinking about getting rid of my 18-105 and buying the 18-200 AF VR Dx lens? I like to shoot landscape, kids, kid sports.

Depending on what kind of "sports" you want to take pics of, I very much doubt anybody's need for 300mm, especially on a crop cam.

You can tackle the whole world with 35-85mm (FF equivalent) without ever needing anything else.

Besides that, the quality of any - more than 4X - zoom is bound to be under pressure.

Paul.

[sobhana]

I agree with a lot of what Jerry said. I've tried and sold a few lenses but I hang onto my 18-200. I use it for just about everything aside from macro and often times I'll do portraits with my 50mm.

The 70-200 F2.8 VR has been in my Amazon "wish list" foreverrrrr. lol. One day I'll get the money together for it!

[hogan18]

All comments were very helpful.- Thanks Everyone!!

[jerryph]

Depending on what kind of "sports" you want to take pics of, I very much doubt anybody's need for 300mm, especially on a crop cam.

You can tackle the whole world with 35-85mm (FF equivalent) without ever needing anything else.

Besides that, the quality of any - more than 4X - zoom is bound to be under pressure.


35-85mm lens at sporting events?

Have you looked on the sidelines of any major football game in the last 15 years? The average focal length of the lenses you will see there is 400-600mm lenses.

Seen the photographers at the Olympics? The vast majority at some events exceeded 600mm!

Depending on how far away you are, what you want to capture, this will define more what lens is needed.

Also, when referring to cropped cameras vs full frame, there is ZERO magnification on a camera with a smaller sensor, there is just a field of view (FOV) difference. I own both a D200 and D700 (one cropped and one full frame camera), so I can speak from experience here.

The same lens on the 2 cameras will give me IDENTICAL zoom levels, and once I cut off the extra sides and top that the D700 offers, I have the SAME level of zoom, and hence, the SAME picture from both cameras.

Also, sports locations can be incredibly diverse and often be very demanding. Let's take a look at a somewhat international game... soccer (or European Football, if you will). In an outdoor stadium during the day, a fast lens is no biggie, and you can use just about any aperture and get away with it.

However, move it indoors, and you'd better have both a VERY fast lens (F/2.8) and a camera that is good at higher ISO just so you can get respectable shutter speeds to avoid motion blur.

Example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3142794536_1f80259cb5.jpg

I had to push my equipment pretty hard to get this shot. To get my 1/500th shutter speed needed to avoid motion blur, I had to set the lens to 200mm @ F/2.8 and ISO to 6400 to get this indoor Soccer shot.

Hockey rinks are also notoriously challenging to get good pictures out of, and I won't even talk about how poorly lit most high school gyms anywhere are and that they are often exercises in frustration to get good pictures at.

ISO 3200, 200mm @ F/5 and 1/500th:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/3142794588_d69d3080c2.jpg

Can you imagine how big the players would look at focal lengths between 35-85mm? Quite small. :)

When you combine fast motion with poorly lit environments, equipment is going to be a very important factor. Unfortunately, long lenses are almost mandatory with sports.