Years ago I tried a third party screen for my F3HP and just did not think it worked as well as the "E" screen I was used to (plain ground glass with grid). Now with my D90, I find manually focusing works just fine. I don't do it for the speed of focus, just that I can more carefully choose what elements I want in focus, only an issue when DOF is shallow. In all other circumstances I use AF, since I'm usually shooting at f8-f16 anyway. I'd also be reluctant to change the screen in my D90. The F3HP was made to make screen changes quickly and easily, even in the field. The D90 is not.

Thanks for the info, mb and hearty. I may get one for my D90.

I have a KatzEye on my S5Pro(D200 clone). Works great. I find it is very useful with my 50mm 1.4 ais and with my 150 macro. Its nice to "see" the focus confirmed on the area you want to be in focus even when using af lenses. I will be getting one for my D400 or D700 if I ever get one... I dont think it darkens the viewfinder...

Katz Eye focus screen darkens the image and may not be as useful on D90 small and not so bright viewfinder. And yes I remember a thread about it but as I remember someone was asking about it, and Panamon_Creel has it.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=913#post-14993
I tried one mounted on D300 and it really works well, but it is around 200$ and I decided not to invest because it could most likely be used only on a this specific body and certainly not on FX, there is also a question about warranty being void and when you sell it will usually not add to the price as much as you pay for it.

ted2001 you do not seam that old and for macro MF is the only way, and you are right about studio portraits unless you are shooting someone nervous and jumpy ;)

The 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 on my D90 and D80 has pretty sufficient Dof and great Bokeh... I still know what you mean about the Dof though. I've shot with a D3 and D700 and found the Dof handling much more pleasant and sensitive...

Have you considered getting a Katz Eye focus screen, ted? I'd like to get one for nostalgic value, but it sounds like you could use it for macro work, and especially if you're planning on getting some manual focus lenses. It doesn't affect autofocus perfomance or the viewfinder markings and only slightly affects metering (1/3 stop or something, which is basically nothing with the exposure latitude the D90 gives you).

Did someone on the forum try one of these out or am I remembering wrong?

re: no AF on Voigtlander

Even though I'm old, I still have the strength and vision to focus a camera. Besides, most portrait subjects don't seem to be moving either quickly or unpredictably, so I think I should be ok!. (I'm just pulling your leg...)

I use manual focus frequently when doing macro work and I like carefully choosing my plane of focus (I could not live without depth of field preview). I most frequently used very shallow DOF for B&W shots of women. As long as I nailed the focus on the eyes, it was often flattering.

ted2001 said:
I've tried my 50/2 and 60/2.8 micro for portraits on a D90 and am not impressed. The 50 feels too short to me and the 60/2.8 doesn't provided sufficiently shallow DOF for my taste. In the next few weeks I hope to try the Voigtlander 58/1.4 as a potential solution.

At least we agree on focal length for portraits on DX, as for DOF it really depends on taste and I don’t like nose, hair and ears so much out of focus as they are with faster lenses but I see your point.
As for Voigtlander 58/1.4 I hear it is very good lens, though manual focus …

ted2001 - totally agree with You, 50mm doesn't look good on DX

I agree, I use my 50mm F1.8 for portraits, anything less than that is just too much depth of field.

I've never been a fan of "fast glass" and am very happy with my 10-24, 16-85 and 70-300 - all comparatively slow (and smaller and less expensive). On the other hand, when I did a lot of portraits (film on F3HP), I mostly used the 105/2.5 and 85/2 (I couldn't afford the 1.4) and loved the shallow DOF. There's a reason the 85/1.4 and 100/2 are FX favorites for portraits.

I've tried my 50/2 and 60/2.8 micro for portraits on a D90 and am not impressed. The 50 feels too short to me and the 60/2.8 doesn't provided sufficiently shallow DOF for my taste. In the next few weeks I hope to try the Voigtlander 58/1.4 as a potential solution.

PB PM said:
Yeah, and I'm sure the people who shot those for Nikon took the time to fix that in photoshop. :-p The D3X is an FX camera, not a DX camera, on which F2.8 has greater depth of field as well.

It is a digital age we are living, but besides of that 60mm has very nice bokeh and it is a desirable feature for portraits.
Depth of field depends on how far you are from the subject not only on sensor size and it seams to me that f/2.8 is good enough for portraits.

I got mine at Samys refurbished for $700 flat but at the time I got it B&H, Adaroma, and Calumet were selling it new for a minimum of $950...

Hi zippergooch, welcome to the forum.

You got a refurbished D90 body for $750USD?! You could have gotten a brand new one for that price.

do what i did. i got the body refurbished and the lens used on craigslist. the body cost me about $750 and then i got the 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 for $500. thats 1250. ive seen the 18-105 on craigslist for $150 mint but i didnt take it because i didnt need it. but for the remaining $150 you can get yourself any other kit lens like the 18-70 or 18-55 vr.

With all due respect to Adamz, DON'T get the 18-55vr. While the 55-200mm is a good lens, the 18-70mm (although no VR) outdoes the 18-55mm in the light it lets in alone, and makes up for the vr because of it. The kit lens is also good. For your budget though I would recommend a whole bag of lenses with a 50mm 1.8 ($40), 80-200mm 2.8 ($600), 18-105 3.5-5.6 ($400), and probably a mid wide like the 35mm prime... Indoor dance recitals occasionally require a faster lens than 3.5/5.6 if you want to use higher shutter speeds. While the 18-55 has great glass, it sucks at admitting light down the barrell to the point that the VR only brings it back to what the kit lens or 18-70mm does...

I would go for the 18-55vr, 55-200vr kit, if You will have some money left get 35/1.8

Thanks everyone for the feedback

mb said:
Yeah right, that is probably why Nikon used it for portrait samples when promoting D3x.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/sample.htm

Yeah, and I'm sure the people who shot those for Nikon took the time to fix that in photoshop. :-p The D3X is an FX camera, not a DX camera, on which F2.8 has greater depth of field as well.

If I could only have one lens for my D90, it would be my 16-85. Not fast, but sharp and it covers all the focal lengths I usually use. It will also us up you money. For my taste 50mm is too short for portraits and 85 is too long. Get a good mid zoom and see what focal lengths work for you. Then you might want to look at a fast prime of that length. I love my 16-85, but the 17-55/2.8 Nikon and Tamron lenses seem well liked. While I love my 60/2.8 for macro, it's not a good portrait lens.

Yeah right, that is probably why Nikon used it for portrait samples when promoting D3x.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/sample.htm

The 60mm AF-S Macro is a better focal length, but macros are too sharp to use for portraits, they show too many flaws, even wide open, especially on a DX body.

Though you can quite successfully shoot portraits with 50mm a bit longer lens will give more room between you and your subject and that helps. I would personally go for AF-S Micro 60 mm, it is long enough (90mm equivalent) and fast enough (F/2.8) for portraits, it is very sharp and it will allow for very decent macro as well on DX.
If portraits and kids are yours main goal you should also consider D5000 with 18-55, the IQ is very much the same as D90 and 18-55 is about the same IQ as 18-105 but it is a bit more reliable because 18-105 is a bit too heavy for plastic mount.
AF-S Micro 60 mm is about 500 and D5000 kit 650 so you are good to go for about 1150 and if any money is left I would go for SB-600 flash that would be very useful indoors.

Sound piece of advice... Thanks for the input

Some people on this forum think the 50 1.8 is a little short for portraiture. I disagree, but maybe you could get the kit and see what focal lengths you like best. The 50 1.8 along with the SB-600 and the kit lens would be a great setup, and more versatile than if you buy the 85mm 1.8 because you'll have a nice flash that you can bounce. It makes a huge difference in some situations. But the 85 takes beautiful portraits.

I don't think you'll be sorry if you get the kit lens, though. The 18-105 is my favorite Nikon kit lens, and I've used all of the DX ones except for the 18-135.