New to DSLR

[mlfaber]

I figured this would be a good place to ask, cause I know everyone on here already has good taste in tools!  Anyway, I am getting my first DSLR, the Nikon D90.  I have a choice to buy it body only or with the kit lens, Nikon's 18-105 VR.  Any suggestions?  Is the 18-105 a good lens.  I am looking to get a good quality "everyday Lens".  I am also getting either the 35 or 50 1.8.  I really wanted the Nikon 16-85 but no longer available.  Again any help or suggestions please.  Sigma? Tamron?  My eyes are coming out of my head with all of the research and reading I am doing.  Thanks!

 

[bpitch]

It all depends what do you want from a lens
What photography do you do mostly ( portraits/landscapes, etc). What is your budget?
Since this is your first DSLR, I would suggest you get a kit lens (it's not expensive, and this particular one is actually pretty good( my buddy was taking very decent shoo\ts with it while taking it on his hiking trips). After some time of using it you will realize what actually suits you better, and what other lens you would like to add to your collection.
If someone tells you that some lens is a great "all arounder", don't buy it. Just as with tools, you can hypothetically use a reciprocating saw for everything, but the result may not be satisfying

Just a cent from a photo enthusiast.

 

[live4ever]

You will get some good advice here...

A 50/1.8 is cheap and a good lens to have.  Though I agree that there is no such thing as a truly good "all-around" lens unless you spend $1-2k (and then it will be heavier than you may want), it's important for a DSLR novice to figure out what style best suits them and their style of photography.  Fixed or zoom lenses?  Having a cheap fixed focal length like the 50/1.8 and a starter all-around zoom will help you decide if you feel creatively stifled or creatively inspired by fixed focal.  Then you can invest in better lenses with that knowledge.

Another thing that you will need to learn is whether you are a natural light low aperture (low depth of field) type of shooter (which would steer you to high-priced fixed focal length lenses...if you think collecting Festool is bad...) or whether you prefer greater depth of field and use flash in your portraits.

I'm a Canon shooter so I can't offer you specifics on Nikon gear.  However, I will tell you that you'd have to pry my cold dead hands from my primes (fixed focal)...35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2.  

If you're not already there, a really good website to learn about photography gear is Fredmiranda.com.  They have a really really good buy/sell forum with a good reputation system built-in to prevent scams.  The thing about lenses is they retain a very high resale value (similar to Festool...75-90%).  So buying and selling lenses is a really good way to try different types.  You barely lose anything on the resale if you buy used.  Oh, another warning about the forum I mentioned - it will spur your gear addiction in the same way FOG does.

Enjoy!

 

[Stone Message]

I am not a photographic expert but I have managed to buy some excellent cameras with the help of a guy called Ken Rockwell. Check out his web site....

http://kenrockwell.com/

You can find camera reviews, lens reviews and much more. I have not looked but I am sure that he will have a section on the D90. My current and previous DSLRs were Nikons but my point and shoot is made by Canon. I am very happy with all of my kit and lenses thanks to Ken's advice.

Peter

 

[RC]

I'm a Canon shooter myself so can't say much about the specific lens, but I would suggest going with the 35mm prime rather than the 50mm one simply because the D90 is a crop frame camera or a DX camera in Nikon speak i.e. You need to multiply every focal length figure by 1.5x to get the 35mm full-frame sensor equivalent length.

In practice this means that with a 35mm lens on a DX camera your field of view is equivalent to a traditional film camera with a 52.5mm lens and a 50mm lens will be equivalent to a 75mm lens.

My go to lens on my full frame camera is my 50mm/f1.4 and about half the time I crave for a 24mm prime for inside shots. I rarely use focal lengths of 70mm+.

I presume you are getting a superb deal on the D90 since it's an old model?

Have you seriously considered the smaller (physically) mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic GX1 with its power zoom (folding) lens or the Sony NEX series cameras or even the Sony RX100 compact which are plenty capable as cameras but are alot nicer size to carry around than a reflex camera?

I'm taking three times more pictures with my iPhone than my DSLR system just because I can't be bothered to carry a bagfull of camera gear with me...

I'm seriously thinking on buying the Sony RX100 for a pocket camera.

 

[Sparktrician]

The D90 is a wonderful camera.  As for a good single lens, you can't go wrong with the 18-200mm VR II lens.  The images I get from mine are crisp, and the color resolution is tops.  It equates to a 27-300mm lens in the 35mm format.  It's hard to beat this as a lens for all seasons.  Another good source of objective data on the possibilities is DP Review. 

[smile]

 

[woodie]

I’m a Canon guy too, so I’m less familiar with Nikon lens choices. I will throw one more website out to reference though.

SLRgear

This site focuses specifically on lenses. The depth of their reviews can be a bit overwhelming at times, so every now and then I’ll skip to the conclusion portion of the review (cheating, I know) [big grin].

I will say, if there isn’t a significant price difference between “body only” and “body with lens” it’s probably not a bad idea to get the combo. You’re already aware that the optics in kit lenses aren’t the greatest, but this way you can figure out where you find yourself shooting zoom wise and with what aperture. This will help you make a more informed decision based on your shooting style when the time comes to upgrade. Plus, you’ll have a backup lens or lens for shooting in less than ideal environments.

 

[woodie]

Have you seriously considered the smaller (physically) mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic GX1 with its power zoom (folding) lens or the Sony NEX series cameras or even the Sony RX100 compact which are plenty capable as cameras but are alot nicer size to carry around than a reflex camera?

I'm taking three times more pictures with my iPhone than my DSLR system just because I can't be bothered to carry a bagfull of camera gear with me...

I'm seriously thinking on buying the Sony RX100 for a pocket camera.

Reiska - Being a Canon guy I'm surprised you don't have this one on your wish list. I know it's on mine.

EOS M

Add the $200 lens adapter and you can use any of your EF/EF-S lenses.

 

[fdengel]

you’ll have a backup lens or lens for shooting in less than ideal environments.

I'm also a Canon guy, but regardless of brand, a typical kit lens would likely be among my last choices in suboptimal shooting environments - if we are talking about dust and such - because the cheaper construction of the lens won't be sealed well against the elements.

If you need to shoot in that kind of environment regularly, you should be looking for a weather-resistant camera and would need a matched weather-resistant lens to go with it.

Without those, you'd need an encasement of some sort to protect the camera, at which point you are likely adding some kind of "filter" because of the need to keep the case sealed (something will already be in front of the lens) and the superior optics of a better lens would be that much more important -- plus it would be the job of the case to protect the gear...

Note that if dust or water penetrate the lens, it will enter the camera too through the mount.

EDIT: back when I bought my Canon EOS 30D, I got the slightly better version of kit lens with it, which is a 17-85mm.  It is actually something of a mid-range lens rather than the normal "cheapie" kit lens that you'd usually get with a camera -- you can tell by the weight (decent lenses have some heft to them, both from the higher-quality materials used in the optics themselves and from the sturdier metal housings used to protect those optics)...  I still use that regularly as my main "walk-around-and-shoot-whatever-comes-up" lens on that camera.  I find that it is a good general focal length for "non-specific" shooting, and works rather well for me.  If I am setting up a backdrop and lights with umbrellas and such, I'll generally try to use one of my prime lenses if I have one that will work in the room I have to set up in.  If I'm standing in the back of a room and trying to shoot things at a drama, over the heads of an audience, I would likely swap in something with a bit more of a telephoto range.  If you are trying to shoot birds... good luck!  But a decent mid-range zoom like with a range like the one you indicated for that kit lens is probably as good a place to start as any (generic family/church/business/whatever walk-around events and the like), unless you do have something specific in mind... then figure out what you are missing and build from there.

 

[RC]

I just fail to see any benefit from the Canon M for my primary use for a small 'almost' pocketable camera as a travel street photo camera.

I might just as well take my 5Dm2 with me if I'm packing my 50/f1.4, 17-40L or 70-200 4L IS with me to use on an EF adapter on the M.

When I travel on business it's a question of choise: either take the laptop & mouse or the camera with lenses and try to hack it with just the iPad.

Therefore I'm looking at good quality pocketable sized options like the RX100 or the GX1 with the powerzoom lens.

If Canon came out with a compact & fast lens for the M I would get on in a flash just for brand compatibility with my current flashes even thou a 580EXII would dwarf the M [big grin]

 

[mouppe]

You're in exactly the same boat I was in a couple of years ago.

I ended up buying a D90 body only, and a 50mm portrait lens-about $150. Later on I bought an 18-200 zoom lens- the one sparktrician mentioned- which is expensive at $650 or so but well worth it. With these two lenses I can do almost anything I want and they are both excellent quality lenses. The lens that comes with the D90 is only so-so so it's better to buy the  body separately and a better lens.

I usually keep the zoom lens on the camera for most shots, but when I want portrait pictures of the kids or family, I stick on the 50mm lens.

I didn't know much about photography when I bought the D90 but I am very happy with the camera and lenses to date.

One thing to note, buy a filter to screw on the end of the lenses. It will protect them from the inevitable scratches and only cost about $15.

 

[Jeff Zanin]

One of the best sites for Nikon info is Thom Hogan's.  His review of the 18-105 is here.

Jeff

 

[hockey_magnet]

As a LONG time Nikon shooter, welcome to Nikon. As a "kit" lens the 18-105 is actually a very good lens. I had the 16-85 at one time  a few years back and it is a touch sharper but the 18-105 is very good value and you may not even be able to tell the difference. . Do not let anyone talk you into spending tons of money on "good glass" at this stage. You really need to develop a feeling for which focal lengths you prefer to shoot and what subjects you are shooting. do you need fast lenses for low light? Telephoto for wild life? WA for interiors and landscapes? , etc. etc. For a person just starting out with a DSLR the 18-105 is an excellent choice. The 35 1.8 is really a no brainer, a phenomenal value and it will really open your eyes. Great for low light indoor shooting. Just get it.  If you feel compelled to go tele, the 70-300 is a very nice lens as well. I long ago moved up to the 70-200 and 28-70 but these are very expensive, Don't dismiss buying used. You can get some excellent deals if you're careful. You will also get a lot of advice on "primes vs zooms". My best advice if you're new to this is to go ahead with the 18-105 and the 35 and see where you're at in 6 months or so. You may want to move up to FX at some point in the future as well but keep in mind you will be able to get a decent price for your used gear if you maintain it properly, 

Agree with the comments on Thom. Ken Rockwell is a very different animal and I personally do not agree with a lot of what he says. Tends to over simplify many issues. There are lots of good review sites - DPreview, etc, that have archived reviews of anything you're considering.

Get out and shoot something, don't over think it.

Chris

 

[mlfaber]

One of the best sites for Nikon info is Thom Hogan's.  His review of the 18-105 is here.

Jeff

Great site, thank you!  I appreciate all of the very good info.  So, I think I have decided to get the Kit with the 18-105 lens.  This particular lens gets very good reviews and has a nice range.  The only thing that may persuade me is the new 24-85 lens.  It gets stunning reviews.  My range seems to stay between 30 and 80 and is mostly nature and kids at play.  I am also interested in playing with depth of field and boket.  I am definitely getting the 35 1.8 and am interested in doing some portraits.  The kit is about $300 more than the body alone and the 18-105 runs about $400 new, so a $100 savings.  The 24-85 is about $600 so about $200 more than the kit price.  I really don't have much interest in anything longer than the 105 right now, but you never know when the need arises! ;D  So, my thought might be keep the kit lens for a traveling lens, because it gets decent clarity across it's whole focal range vs. losing image quality with some of the longer zooms.  I hope I have this right, besides with a DX camera there is a 1.5 multiplier so 105 is really 157 or so.  If I don't see a huge difference I can return the 24-85  anyway.  I hope this makes sense.  I have looked at the Ken Rockwell sight and he seems interesting to say the least.  Thanks for the tip on Fredmiranda.com, good stuff!

 

[tvgordon]

The D90 is a wonderful camera.  As for a good single lens, you can't go wrong with the 18-200mm VR II lens.  The images I get from mine are crisp, and the color resolution is tops.  It equates to a 27-300mm lens in the 35mm format.  It's hard to beat this as a lens for all seasons.  Another good source of objective data on the possibilities is DP Review. 

[smile]

I'll second the 18-200mm for a good starting point. If you're shooting wildlife, you might want the 28-300 instead. Or landscapes or lower light photos, it's hard to beat the 24-70 lens although it is more expensive than the other two.

Tom

 

[mlfaber]

I thought about the 18-200 but two things. One, my buddy has one so I have access to it. And, I do a bit of hiking so weight and balance were important.

 

[RC]

Just keep in mind that a 24mm lens on a DX camera is in no means wide with the crop factor so the kit DX 18-105 makes more sense focal length wise. I'm presuming that the 24-85 is an FX lens and therefore ofc. better from an upgrade standpoint. (That's how I ended getting a FF camera...)

 

[tvgordon]

I thought about the 18-200 but two things. One, my buddy has one so I have access to it. And, I do a bit of hiking so weight and balance were important.

Try it. I don't find it too heavy at all to carry around for hours. I use either an OP Strap or Blackrapid strap so it's on my shoulder and not neck.

Tom

 

[Sparktrician]

I thought about the 18-200 but two things. One, my buddy has one so I have access to it. And, I do a bit of hiking so weight and balance were important.

Try it. I don't find it too heavy at all to carry around for hours. I use either an OP Strap or Blackrapid strap so it's on my shoulder and not neck.

Tom

+1.  It's the lens I use for street photography when a tripod is not possible, and it's light enough as to not cause a problem after a day of walking and shooting. 

[smile]

 

[Rob Lee]

(snip)  I really wanted the Nikon 16-85 but no longer available.   (snip)

Hi -

I just bought this lens with a D7000, so I think it's still available. I did have to use a loaner lens until a new one came in - supply is apparently very tight, as it's made in Japan, and there are still production disruptions. Also got the 35mm f1.8 ...

Am still learning the camera... zillions of options!

Cheers -

Rob