New to the forum and would love some help in deciding on lens or lenses for a D90. I have a budget of 1300-1400 to spend on camera and lens/lenses. I will be using the camera mainly for portrait photography. However, I also will be taking pictures at dance recitals and children's school programs. Any suggestions/recommendations would be helpful! Thanks
Need your lens expertise for a D90
(33 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Do you want a prime or a zoom? If you want a zoom the D90s 18-105mm kit lens isn't bad. If you like prime lenses, then the 50mm F1.4 (G or D version), or the 85mm F1.8D would fit your budget. In fact you might be able to get the kit zoom and the 85mm F1.8D.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome to the forum, photocrazy. I like the idea of the 18-105 kit lens (~250) and the 85 1.8 (~450), but that leaves a lot of your budget left. Maybe a 35 1.8 DX (~200) or a SB-600 (~220) and a nice tripod and or monopod with what's left?
edit: saw your budget was for camera and lens. Ditto what PB PM said, then. $1030 for D90 + 18-105 and another $450 for the 85 1.8. You could probably find the 85mm used for less if you can't go over budget.Posted 3 years ago # -
I would prefer to have some zoom capability for everyday shooting. I was considering the 50mm 1.8 as a prime. Do you feel that the 85mm is more suited for my situation?
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 85mm F1.8D is a good portrait lens, but the 50mm F1.8D is decent an portrait lens on a DX body, but IMO, if you get a 50mm prime, get one of the F1.4 versions.
Posted 3 years ago # -
This is what I was considering ...
18-200 VR for zoom and 50 1.8 as a prime
B&H had The D90 with 18-200mm for $1273 and the 50mm for a little over a hundred
Posted 3 years ago # -
If you want to do a dance recietal then youll need speed and that 18-200 wont offer that and neither the 50mm1.8. I would sugguest the 85mm 1.8 and that will give you about a 135mm focal length with a F1.8 speed.
Not saying that the 18-200 isnt good but IMO the 18-105 was more then enough for me at the start and i would suggest the 18-105 along with the 85mm 1.8
Posted 3 years ago # -
If you want to do a dance recietal then youll need speed and that 18-200 wont offer that and neither the 50mm1.8. I would sugguest the 85mm 1.8 and that will give you about a 135mm focal length with a F1.8 speed.
Not saying that the 18-200 isnt good but IMO the 18-105 was more then enough for me at the start and i would suggest the 18-105 along with the 85mm 1.8
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sound piece of advice... Thanks for the input
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.htmPosted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.htmYeah, 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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks everyone for the feedback
Posted 3 years ago # -
I would go for the 18-55vr, 55-200vr kit, if You will have some money left get 35/1.8
Posted 3 years ago # -
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...
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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...
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree, I use my 50mm F1.8 for portraits, anything less than that is just too much depth of field.
Posted 3 years ago # -
ted2001 - totally agree with You, 50mm doesn't look good on DX
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
