Keep the 70-210 and forget the 18-200 and other new consumer zooms. I've had 55-200vr, 18-200vr2 and both got sacked because all i ever used was the 70-210. Why? Overall image quality with that solidly build 70-210 is berret and it doesn't feel like junk of plastic. Older 35-70 2.8 af is also a real bargain nowadays.

Nice suggestions guys, but look at the original post date, four months ago.

@gazis - D90 and up is what you will need with your lenses for the AF drive.

I use old manual Nikon lenses that are 40+ years and I'm still thinking the sensors have a way to go to catch up with how good the glass is - so you don't have to worry about your lenses being out-dated.

If you keep your lenses, you will be left wanting on the wide side with 24mm which would turn into 35mm with the crop factor. Here would me my suggestions to take a look at that covers what you like to shoot.

Take look at:
Nikon 18-55VR - all around ok
Tokina 12-24 - my wide wonder - 18-36mm equiv in FX
Tamron 17-55 VC - best bang for the buck all around lens.
Nikon 18-105VR - good Nikon option - may come with a kit.

If you really like the idea of a all in one zoom, the 18-200mm is great but I would get the 35mm 1.8 for the times you want low light shots.

Good luck!

gazis said:
I mostly (80%) shoot various landscapes and I also (10%) like night shots with a tripod - the rest (10%) goes to portraits.

Cheers,

Vangelis

remember the crop factor with DX

land scapes 80% Nikon 10-24mm af-s dx ed - wide is fantastic and forget what they say about the build quality, its like most of the other dx lenses, besides it keep the price affordable. The first day I got mine and went out to do landscapes, ooooooooh

night shots 10% Nikon 50 mm 1.4 d or af-s g if you can afford it- should you get the d you will have to get the D90 or D7000 to drive the AF, or just shoot in manual as AF in the dark is difficult, but af will be nice for the days you want to use it indoors without flash in a church or concert. some will advise the Nikon 35mm, but I do not have one so cannot comment.

portraits 10% 85mm 1.8d creamy this is my go to for portraits, have thought real long about the 1.4, but cannot justify the price as coupled with the 50mm covers most of the concerts and church work that I do.

walk around is a big toss up, I tried a friends 18-200mm and even though it is nice, I prefer the smaller and lighter [and cheaper] 18-55 and 18-105mm VR. My 18-55mm vr is now sealed in an airtight freezer bag with silica gel as the 105 has taken over its role.

was going to say my 0.02 cents as per studio, however with the length of this post its more like 0.05 cents

gazis said:
I want to get a new DX DSLR and, ideally, make use of my older Nikon AF 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 and AF 70-210 f/4.0-5.6D.

If I was you, I´d sell the old lenses for whatever the money I could get and buy either the D7000 now with some really decent glass (for example, Tokina 11-16 + Nikkor 85mm/1.4G) or wait for the D300 successor and get aforementioned the decent glass.

My $0.02:

Often, it seems, many seem to interpret "zoom range" for "versatility." None of those lenses (except the 18-55mm) are wide on the short end, on a DX body. The 18-55mm does get fairly wide, and is a useful lens. However, a faster, short-tele (like a 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8), paired with the 18-55mm will be far more versatile "creatively," than a slow zoom which merely covers more focal lengths.

As for your new body, personally, I would opt for a newer NIkon offering: either the D3100 or D7000. The D7000 is pretty cool, so maybe you could start with that and an AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, and an AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, both of which are very sharp and very affordable. Add faster, fixed-focal length lenses as you progress.

[Edit: But, I guess the D3100 isn't an option for you since you do already own some screw-drive lenses. I think the D7000 is a significant improvement over the D90, and worth the extra premium, but if a D90 is all you can afford, then I would get that over the D3100.]

Gazis,

I have done two weddings with my D90. It performed beautifully. One wedding I used the 18 to 135mm lens and the next one I used the 18 to 105mm with VR. In both situations I was able to use available lighting and strobe. Everything turned out great.

With the advent of the new D7000 the D90 is going down in price and you can get it packaged with an 18 to 105mm lens at a good price.

I would not worry about the old lens. The new ones are designed to work with the new cameras (look at the ten contact points on the back of the new lens). Things change, I too have older lenses I would like to utlilize on my new camera however; the new ones function without any problems and I really don't even think about the older equipment anymore. Think of the older lens like an accessory for on 460 computer; like a CD tray, it is aboslete.

Good luck with your choice of camera I hope it works out for you.

gazis said:
Hi all,

I want to get a new DX DSLR and, ideally, make use of my older Nikon AF 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 and AF 70-210 f/4.0-5.6D. I noticed the latter had some good comments at http://www.kenrockwell.com, and as they are both FX lenses, I think it would be a shame to let them sit idle. So I am thinking of buying the Nikon D90 with the Nikon AF DX 35mm f/1.8 and, ideally, a VR zoom for everyday use, something like the Nikon AF DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII, for instance.

The alternative option is to forget about the existing FX lenses and get the Nikon D5000 with the Nikon AF DX 35mm f/1.8 and either the Nikon AF DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII or the AF DX 18-55mm VR and AF DX 55-200mm VR zoom pair.

Any comments on the pros and cons of these options, e.g., in terms of lens quality? Will the older FX lenses be a quality bottleneck for a new DX camera? Any comments are welcome - and other DSLR/lens combo suggestions as well :-)

Cheers,

Vangelis

Hum... sounds like me a while ago. Started with D80 & DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (great lens! Perfect walk-around lens; small; quick; wide range). Went to D7000 and 35mm 1.8 & FX 80-200 (these are excellent companion to the D7000). The DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 still covers the majority of my shots. And I too, thinking the same, as a number of guys have told you, regarding a wider lens (~10-20mm or similar).
Oh one more thing.... I believe that the quality of the shots is more reflective of the guy behind the camera. The most perfect lens; best optics cannot overcome a lousy designed shot. Go for what you can afford and focus on improving the techniques. I have read too many articles that steered you to the “perfect” lens down played mid-level $$ lens. Most of our shots, ya cannot tell (on the whole). This is my opinion, grab what you can and run with it.

Please do a forum search and do some research on the various models Nikon offers. There have been lots of discussions giving pros and cons for each camera body and lens. Only YOU know what's best for YOU.

Go for the D90, the price is great right now, D5000, not so much. In your position I would get the body only, then the 35mm F1.8G. Use the lenses you have now until you figure out what you want, rather than getting something right now. You'll likely find the 24-50mm lens not wide enough on a DX body (it is about the same as 35mm on a film camera), but it would be a good idea to see if that is true for you.

If 80% of your images will be landscapes then I'd say use your older lenses and go with the D90 as you don't need fast focusing for that.
Also if you buy any newer lenses in the future you can get AFD FX lenses knowing they'll focus on your D90 and any future FX body purchase.
You ca do a side by side comparison here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp
If anyone says the D90 isn't good enough then look at these images shot on D90, I used to have a D80 and it was brilliant...
http://blog.burrard-lucas.com/wp-content/uploads/landscapes/full/landscape-17533.jpg
http://photography.jeremiahchoi.com/images/20100204023012_dsc_5361_2_3.jpg

you won't be using the older lens even with the d90
but still i wouldn't recommend the d5000 over d90
so, yeah get the d90

considering the lens that you already have
i think the 35mm and 18-200 would be "nice to have" lens and not a "must have"
with the emphasis you put on landscapes
i'd like to say that i love my Tokina 11-16mm

very very solidly built, feels much better that nikon's very own 10-24
i've been in many rain pours with this and it still feels like new
very 2.8 bright don't worry about the short zoom i don't zoom much when using it
i use it more like how distorted i want the picture to be rather than how wide i want it to be
its reasonably priced.

so get the wide angle first, get the 35mm later and the superzoom last, or never....

broxibear said:
Hi gazis, what is you budget and what type of images do you take ?

I mostly (80%) shoot various landscapes and I also (10%) like night shots with a tripod - the rest (10%) goes to portraits.

Cheers,

Vangelis

micron49 said:
You may find that some opinions here will converge by saying the lenses you suggest (aside from the 35mm 1.8) are good, not great.

Aside from a bit of lost range and swapping lenses with your existing FXs, maybe consider a wide angle DX lens like 10-24 or 12-24? Used they can be found in the range of the 18-200 and they add a new dynamic to your arsenal. But then you need the more expensive camera if keeping FX lenses.

Thanks for the info, I am considering DX DSLR only, FX is beyond my budget and purpose, as I am an amateur. I mostly (80%) shoot various landscapes and I also (10%) like night shots with a tripod - the rest (10%) goes to portraits.

Cheers,

Vangelis

broxibear said:
Hi gazis, what is you budget and what type of images do you take ?

(I hope I pressed the right 'reply' button) Well, the budget is from $1000 to $1500, I am not willing to go beyond it at this point. I am considering refurbished items from respectable sellers, of course (i.e., B&H, CametaCamera, Adorama)

You may find that some opinions here will converge by saying the lenses you suggest (aside from the 35mm 1.8) are good, not great.

Aside from a bit of lost range and swapping lenses with your existing FXs, maybe consider a wide angle DX lens like 10-24 or 12-24? Used they can be found in the range of the 18-200 and they add a new dynamic to your arsenal. But then you need the more expensive camera if keeping FX lenses.

Hi gazis, what is you budget and what type of images do you take ?

Hi all,

I want to get a new DX DSLR and, ideally, make use of my older Nikon AF 24-50mm f/3.3-4.5 and AF 70-210 f/4.0-5.6D. I noticed the latter had some good comments at *Link Removed*, and as they are both FX lenses, I think it would be a shame to let them sit idle. So I am thinking of buying the Nikon D90 with the Nikon AF DX 35mm f/1.8 and, ideally, a VR zoom for everyday use, something like the Nikon AF DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII, for instance.

The alternative option is to forget about the existing FX lenses and get the Nikon D5000 with the Nikon AF DX 35mm f/1.8 and either the Nikon AF DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII or the AF DX 18-55mm VR and AF DX 55-200mm VR zoom pair.

Any comments on the pros and cons of these options, e.g., in terms of lens quality? Will the older FX lenses be a quality bottleneck for a new DX camera? Any comments are welcome - and other DSLR/lens combo suggestions as well :-)

Cheers,

Vangelis