Lens essentials

[icewoman]

I would like to know what three lens's you would chose if you only could have three. Preferably for Nikon as that is what I have. I am looking for suggestions on who to start building a nice variety of lens's. Prime or no?

[Dbl]

The better question would be, building a lens set for shooting what? I shoot sports and portraits, my lens lineup will be different than say a wildlife shooter. Give us an idea of what you want to do and it will make things a bit easier on recommending a set of lenses.

[Steve Foss]

Yep, I've got three very nice zooms picked out I'd recommend for general purposes, but we really need to know what type of photography you like.

I don't know the Nikon wide angles well, but there should be something in the 17-50 range that's good quality. Also, Tamron makes a very sweet 17-50 f2.8 that's designed for the 1.5 crop sensors of the Nikon. Otherwise, Nikon or Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 (Nikon also makes this lens in a vibration reduction model, which Sigma does not) is a great mid-range telephoto and is plenty fast aperture-wise for sports, though the Siggie will focus just a little slower than the Nikon. At the top end, you can go with Nikon's 80-400 VR, which is a very crisp lens but focuses quite slowly. At the long end, Sigma also makes a 150-500 with its version of vibration reduction that gets good reviews and is significantly less expensive than Nikon telephoto zooms.

You'll note that these are all zooms. For many purposes, the flexibility of the zooms is quite a bit more important than the slight increase in sharpness that prime lenses will give you. These zooms also are less expensive than any of the primes you'd buy, especially if you buy Nikon primes.

[icewoman]

I don't do portrait photography. I take a lot of pictures of birds ( bought myself a blind last week ) and other wildlife, scenery. I am not really looking for a Marco, Wide angler or specialty lens.

How about this.

What would be your choice of a good walk around lens/ best bang for the buck, not necessarily the cheapest.

Then Mid Range and Telephoto Zoom. For the simple minded like myself a small, medium and large lens. Three you would keep in your bag and cover the most but certainly not all circumstances. Not looking for any extreme lens at this time. I am looking at buying quality over quantity, it wil take time to get all a person wants.

[Steve Foss]

For scenery I'll stand by my 17-50 range. In fact, based on what you've said I'll stand by most of the the ones I recommended. The 70-200 is a good wildlife walkaround.

Since you're into birds I'll withdraw the Nikon 80-400 VR from contention because of how slow it focuses. You certainly can use it as an avian lens but you'll miss some captures -- those birds move mighty fast! If you have a ton of money, the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR is the very best supertelephoto zoom on the market. If not, the Sigma 150-500 already mentioned will do you well. And if you're in a blind it's easy to shoot it off a tripod.

What Nikon body are you using?

[icewoman]

I have tried the Sigma 150-500, it was fun but don't think I would buy one anytime soon. I will be using a Nikon D90. I plan to upgrade from the D40 this weekend.

[Steve Foss]

What focal length are you interested in for avian?

[JohnK]

What is your budget and what do you mainly shoot? You could easily spend $15,000 on Nikon glass.

If I could only have 3 lenses and my less than bottomless checkbook had to pay for them, I think I'd go with the Nikon 16-85mm, Sigma 70-200mm, Sigma 150-500mm. That would cover everything I shoot from walk around to sports to wild life and would (I think) all fit in the Tamrac Velocity 9x bag I have.

If I had a much larger budget I'd get the Nikon 70-200 and Nikon 200-400, but that combo is about $7,000 more than my first list.

Primes usually have better image quality than zooms, but you sacrifice flexibility, and at the longer end the primes can be very expensive. The Nikon 300 F/4 makes a good choice, and works well with the 1.4 TC to get you a little bit more reach.

You can almost never have to much reach for wildlife, and especially birds. If you're luring them in with feed and shooting from a blind you can probably get away with something shorter like the 300mm lenses.

[OutlawTorn]

I would have to agree with the opinions of most here. A 17-xx with a large constant ap for your general walkabout lens as this will cover most opportunities you would encounter on a hike. IS (VR in Nikonese) is probably not necessary in this focal length.

Fill in the mid-range with one of the 70-200 zooms mentioned, I would try to get one with VR at this length as 200mm can be hard to hand hold in lower light.

At the long end you have to decide what you want from your lens. Primes are great if you know what focal length you'll need 90% of the time because of the IQ, but they lack flexibility. I would look for something in the 400mm range with a constant ap of f4 so you can add a 1.4 extender and still maintain autofocus.

If primes arent your thing, you may have to go outside the Nikon box and consider any of the Bigmas (50-500, 150-500, or the xxx-400), or a similar model from Tokina or Tamron. VR is also VERY nice at this length - another point in the corner of the 150-500 as its 4 stop OS gets great reviews.

For my money, I would go with the 150-500 but I dont own one yet. What didnt you like about this lens? Was it just the copy you got or something wrong with the intended design.

[icewoman]

I did like the Sigma, but it was fairly big and heavy and my skill level has not evolved to that extent to spend that type of money. With a different body I would love to purchase it. I want to expand myself in scenery and birds ( from the blind ). I am interested in smaller primes. I would rather spend more ( not my entire savings ) and get a good lens I will not have to upgrade later because it does not give good clear images. I sure appreciate the advices.

[Steve Foss]

Then I would have to second Outlaw Torn's advice on the 300 f4. It's light, and from a blind has enough focal length to do well on close birds, and if you get the 1.4 and/or 1.7 Nikon teleconverters, you'll have more muscle when you need it and great image quality.

[Yellowhead]

A lot of good advice here. My two cent worth: if I had to get by with just three lenses I would buy the Nikor 18-105, the Nikor or Sigma 70-300 and the bigma 150-500. I have the bigma 50-500 and it will produce great result on a tripod. It is to heave to hand hold for very long.

I think you will love the D90. I own several Nikons and like the D90 the best. At first I thought the body was to small (have huge hands). I added the power grip and now its perfect.

[mapache]

Would like to add some additional questions related to the 70-200 2.8. I am a relative newbie to DSLR's and purchased a Canon Rebel XTI last year. Has been great for kids sports, sunsets, wildlife, etc and now ready for a bigger lens. Have read enough and received enough advice that seems a 79-200 2.8-32 is the way to go, question I have is what brand and with/without IS. Intent is to buy a lense I will be happy with for the next 10 years with no regrets. Is it worth the extra $600 to get IS from Canon, what about the Tamron for roughly 1/2 price? Budget a bit of a factor but most important is don't want to second guess myself for buying cheap. Primary use likely sports (mainly outdoor), and some amateur bird/wildlife shots.

[Dbl]

I own both 70-200/2.8's, one with IS the other without so I can offer some comparisons. If your primary use of the lens will be outdoor sports or shooting with good light you likely will not see a large benefit to IS. Shooting sports or wildlife with higher shutter speeds the IS will not help at all.

I have an IS version for low light situations and for portrait work but I find I don't actually use the IS all that much because I almost always use external lights with those types of shots.

I don't have any first hand experience with the Tamron or Sigma 70-200/2.8 so I can't offer any insight here. But I will say if you are planning on owning the lens for a long time I would be leaning toward the purchase of the Canon. They hold their value, in fact with the recent price increase I've seen used sell for almost the same price as the old new prices!

If you decide to upgrade cameras you will already own one of Canon's better all around zoom lens. Hope that helps.

[icewoman]

I received my D-90 and two lens I ordered in the mail the middle of last week. I have been feeling sick so I have not taken many shots yet. I did a lot of research and purchased these two.

AF Nikkor 28mm f2.8D

AF Nikkor 85mm f1.8D

First off I like them both but I have a real novice question. Am I able to change the Aperture on lens? If it is not " locked " into the minimum aperture I can not get the camera to take a picture. ( please do not chuckle at my ignorance ). Input on these lens's would be appreciated.

[JohnK]

The aperture ring on the lens is a hold over from older cameras, as you noticed you can't set it on newer Nikons or they display and error and won't fire. The 50 f/1.8 does the same thing, it drove me crazy the first time I shifted that ring a little and the camera wouldn't work.

By almost all accounts the 85 f/1.8 is a terrific lens, I almost got one to shoot my brother in laws wedding, but made do with the 50mm instead. Many indoor sports shooters swear by the 85 f/1.8, I'm sure it will work great for you.

[icewoman]

Ok, Just so I get this right. I have to shoot with the lens locked in position. I can not change the aperture of this lens at all?

[JohnK]

Ok, Just so I get this right. I have to shoot with the lens locked in position. I can not change the aperture of this lens at all?

You can not change the aperture using the ring on the lens. You change it on the camera (front wheel) on your D90, in A or M modes just like you would on a lens that does not have the aperture ring.

[yakfisher]

Recent reviews that I have read note that the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 that has been recently updated focuses significantly faster than the tamron lens and almost as fast as the Nikon lens. I've been looking at these as well.

Icewoman- the aperture can only be changed in with the camera body and not the physical ring on the lens. You'll get used to it, have fun with the new gear!

[icewoman]

If I can kick this cold this weekend I hope to take some pictures with the new lens's. I have been doing a lot of reading on different settings for different situations and want to try them out...night shots with longer exposures, my neighbors halloween display and fall foliage etc...I am pretty excited. I love the D90 and what appears to be the ease of changing settings, MUCH improved from the D40. The continuous shutter is amazing. I tried to upload some pics from the Mac but it is to much for this foggy brain right now.