Congrats on your purchase .. Its a good choice...

Concert photography needs fast lenses but its only one small aspect of photography. If you don't have the equipment to do it well.. then take photos of other things !! LOL .. The 16-85 gives you the ability to take photos in MANY situations and do fairly well with stage/concert photos if the subject does not move much. You really don't need any other lenses until you find that you need it.(??) ie don't buy any other lens until you feel you cant do something that you really want to do. once you find your specialized need then you can find a good specialized lens that is fit for purpose. All those lenses are fine. But if after using your nice 16-85 for a few months you find that you have discovered that you really like macro photography then those lenses would have been a waste of money.. just shoot with that wonderful lens of yours for a while then you will know what you really want in little while..

some people go long, some people go wide, some people go close macro, some people go long macro, some people go primes some go birding(big long primes) some people go "street" some go portrait, some go fashion. All these thisng need more specilied equipment (not only lenses) like I said .. see what You develop into.

As a final update, I bought this lens and the D90. Love it. Still learning...not just the features but overall. I took some test shots at the close of dusk (~8:30pm EST) yesterday and they turned out crisp and nice. Focuses well. Sometimes in the lower lights I bring it closer to focus manually and let it finalize. Great cam, solid consumer lens. Thinking I might round out my kit with the 70-300mm VR, 1.8 35mm DX and 1.4 or 1.8 50mm.

Loving it!

If you are shooting outdoor concerts and can get reasonably close the 16-85 should work well. If you are further back I would look for a longer lens. Any of the 80-200/70-200 f2.8 lenses from Nikon and others would work well and would also work later in the evening. Nikon has a number of consumer tele zooms as well, one of the lenses with VR would probably work as well. The 18-200 gets mixed reviews, but most folks who actually have the lens like it, and it would also be a good lens for outdoor concerts during the day.

Jim Couch

Nifty Fifty would be great, but would force me to get a pass or be up front I think. That would equate to about 75mm, which really isn't bad. Most of my applications are for high res Web, so maybe I could get away with cranking the iso a little and going for a zoom? I'm doing a festival tour this summer....not sure how close I can always get. I had some decent shots from my Sony T100 last year when I was close and during the day (only).

As always, the feedback from each of you is valued and appreciated.

Thx!

Cconert? D90+Nifty Fifty would rock. Nifty Fifty= 50mm f/1.8 af-d.

question how many of you actually used 18-105 ???
I do agree that 18-200 not the sharpest ... but for its range on DX format its great
18-105 on the other hand ... I cant even come up with one advantage of that lens over others
- sh!ty build
- image quality is just not there
- corners are always blurry till u hit around 50mm+
- how it blurs the background is kinda strange (just an opinion)

16-85 is just a great lens, best of current Nikon semipro lenses (17-55 is better but for double price).
It is much better then 18-200 in every aspect.
On the other hand 18-105 is not much worse than 16-85, it is the same as 18-200 regarding picture quality, and for the price they sell it in kit it is real bargain.

You asked about the 80-200. I have the F2.8 D ED version and works well for a variety of subject matter from portraits to action. It is not the fastest at focusing but it is much quicker than I can do it manually and I rarely miss a shot due to this. It is generally very sharp but not brilliant at 200mm and at very short range. It is not a cheap lens but it has very little distortion and is great for isolating candid shots of people at functions such as weddings. This, for me, makes it worth the money. And one last advantage, if I can ever justify a full frame body it will work perfectly with that too.

?? 18-105 vr is not a "very bad" lens. Some say the 18-200 is not sharp and a wast of money. But I use it a lot! I dont have the 18-105 but I have looked through it and handled it. I dot think its "very bad" I think its "very good" :-)

Concert photography is just at the edge of the capability of the D90 and a zoom like the 18-200. You will need very good technique to get good shots. Even an F2.8 lens will be pushing it. Go to photo.net. There is a tutorial on concert/stage photography that will help. Its a bit dated but it still have tips on techniques that will help.

Webmoore - 18-105 very bad lens (full stop) nothing much else I can say about it.
18-200 all around lens if you looking to get 1 lens only
or just pick up 18-55 as a walk around and something like 80-200 2.8 if you need zoom (they sell them second hand and its great for the money you pay)

dont try to spend it all on a new gear second hand lenses are great savings

Thanks for all the help. I will consider this lens for all-around. Although, it seems like a lot of cash for a basic lens. Is it that much better than the 18-105 kit beyond build quality (which wouldn't seem to justify double the price)??

Thanks to each you for the info on some of the specialty zooms you mention.

I plan on doing a concert festival tour this year with many bands playing during the day...any chance the more consumer 3.5-5.6 zooms will work for this type of situation?

What about bumping up iso to compensate for being slower in all situations?

Thx!

if you are considering the 50-135 tokina. Consider also the 50-150 sigma.Both are F2.8 but the Sigma has better control of flare which is quite important in concert situations. The best lens for concert wher you cant get close to teh staage is teh 70-200F2.8 VR . But that lens is big and expensive. The 16-85 vr should be able to handle almost anything else.

I just purchased a 16-85 for travel and I am thinking I am going to really like it. HOWEVER, if you are serious about any kind of low light photography (concert) forget ANY consumer grade lens, you will NEED an f/2.8 lens. The biggest advantage to the faster lenses is focusing speed, in low light you need that big aperture t bring in enough light to get the autofocus to work quickly and reliably.

You might want to look at the Tokina 50-135 AT-X pro. It is actually fairly compact, you will appreciate the reach in most concert situations, it focuses faster than the 16-85 in low light, and is actually a few bucks cheaper than the Nikon 16-85.

Jim Couch

Thanks for the advice. I have heard that the 16-85 is slow, but not sure what that means. Sure if doesn't go to f2.8 but shouldn't be any slower than most of the other consumer lenses out there unless AI focus is slow or something...?

Also, the 16-85 for low light: I can't imagine there is much better out there for consumers except the fast primes. Does the 18-105 or 15-55 not present the same issue? Any alternatives here.

Lastly, can you tell me more about the 80-200 you bought? Is it 4-5.6? Do you find that to be too slow to capture anything with even moderate movement? I'm not a sports photographer, but I want to capture some fun concert shots from back in the crowd.

I have been using the 16-85 since it was first available in the UK. It is very sharp and focuses well. The VR works quite well but I would not base my purchase on this feature alone. As the other poster said, it will not be perfect for low light. Distortion can be easily corrected in Photoshop or DXO. Overall I think this is the best of the DX consumer lenses available at the moment and I would fully recommend it.
With regard to reach, I think it may be better to do this in two bites so I use an 80-200 for the longer shots.

Sorry, yes I meant the 16-85mm. What would I need to capture concert pics? Do I need to spend a fortune on a lense?! And carry around a massive one?

Thx for the insight...finding my way!

At f/3.5 to f/5.6 it probably won't be fast enough for concert photos. I think you meant the 16-85? from Thom Hogan, he said the lens is very good optically, but also very expensive. I haven't used the lens, so I can't say anything about it. But you should try out all the lenses and see what you want to buy.

Greetings, I'm getting into photography after using a Minolta 12 years ago in college. I've been playing around with point and shoots for a while and want to step up to DSLR. I've decided to buy a D90 so that decision is made. Not exactly sure of the use. I like artsy shots. People shots. Closeups and wide open ranges. I like to hike for instance and I love cityscapes and low-light urban shots. I figure an eventual 35mm Dx (53mm at 35 non dx) 1.8G would be a given purchase (even though I've read it disappoints with barrel distortion for a prime).

In any case, I wanted to talk lenses. I don't want the 18-200mm. I've heard that the 18-105mm has a plastic mount and is not that great of a lens. I thought I would buy the D90 body only and then the 16-85mm. Is this a good lens and choice?

Not sure if I will miss the extra reach. I guess I could buy the 55-200vr as well, but does that not focus fast? At 3.5-5.6 is it a dog for capturing concert photos for example? Getting beyond my knowledge point here.