[Inspired]

I am planning to get a new set of lens for my D90 looking for suggestions. I used to have 18-55 and 55-200 and thought it was horrible and ended up selling it. I am looking for new lens most likely the 18-200 VR. I usually shoot landscape, cars, and potraits. Any suggestions or comments? Thanks

[1013mm]

new 18-200m VR coming soon so you might wait for that.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by jzhang

new 18-200m VR coming soon so you might wait for that.

what is the difference between the new and the older version?

[sourphish]

What's your budget (somehow this is always the question with buying things =P )?
Do you want a good walk-around, all-in-one lens like the 18-200? Or you could get a dedicated wide angle lens such as the nikon 12-24mm and a 50mm for your portrait shots. I'd say that a 50mm is a MUST for any photographer.

[1013mm]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

what is the difference between the new and the older version?

Maybe very little change in image quality. And a few cosmetic changes.

[TWiTCHY]

Landscapes, cars, and portraits...well here's your problem, you're either looking at one or two lenses.

One lens would be the 18-200mm.

Two lenses would be a wide-angle and a telephoto. WA for the landscapes and cars, tele for the cars and portraits.

You're going to get better results if you go with two dedicated lenses, but of course that's more money out of the pocket.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by sourphish

What's your budget (somehow this is always the question with buying things =P )?
Do you want a good walk-around, all-in-one lens like the 18-200? Or you could get a dedicated wide angle lens such as the nikon 12-24mm and a 50mm for your portrait shots. I'd say that a 50mm is a MUST for any photographer.

No real budget.. Well reasonable budget.. like $1000-$1500.. nothing crazy like $10,000..

I don't really know what is best for me. Been debating either the 18-200 or the 12-24 for a while. That's why I am asking some fellow camera enthusiast to help me make my decision..

[1013mm]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

what is the difference between the new and the older version?

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

No real budget.. Well reasonable budget.. like $1000-$1500.. nothing crazy like $10,000..

I don't really know what is best for me. Been debating either the 18-200 or the 12-24 for a while. That's why I am asking some fellow camera enthusiast to help me make my decision..

17-55mm f2.8 view my site, I use that lens exclusively now. But what do you want to use the lens to shoot is the question.

[sourphish]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

Landscapes, cars, and portraits...well here's your problem, you're either looking at one or two lenses.

One lens would be the 18-200mm.

Two lenses would be a wide-angle and a telephoto. WA for the landscapes and cars, tele for the cars and portraits.

You're going to get better results if you went with two dedicated lenses, but of course that's more money out of the pocket.

I agree with TWiTCHY. You would get better results with 2 dedicated lenses. Don't forget you can always use craigslist to get good used lenses. I've never bought a single lens or body new, but all the ones I chose to buy are in absolute perfect condition and all from craigslist or FM. It's a good way to save money so you can buy more/better glass.

Anyway, back on topic. The nikon 12-24 is a great choice. Mine is extremely sharp and even on the crop sensor, it comes out to be 18mm which is very wide, great for your landscapes and car pictures. As for portraits, I would still probably use a 50mm since I don't want to be too close to the people (making them feel awkward in some cases) and I don't want to be too distant from them--kind of feels less personal? shrugs. Again, it just depends on what you're going to do with the lenses.

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by jzhang

17-55mm f2.8 view my site, I use that lens exclusively now. But what do you want to use the lens to shoot is the question.

i'll look into that..

Originally Posted by sourphish

I agree with TWiTCHY. You would get better results with 2 dedicated lenses. Don't forget you can always use craigslist to get good used lenses. I've never bought a single lens or body new, but all the ones I chose to buy are in absolute perfect condition and all from craigslist or FM. It's a good way to save money so you can buy more/better glass.

Anyway, back on topic. The nikon 12-24 is a great choice. Mine is extremely sharp and even on the crop sensor, it comes out to be 18mm which is very wide, great for your landscapes and car pictures. As for portraits, I would still probably use a 50mm since I don't want to be too close to the people (making them feel awkward in some cases) and I don't want to be too distant from them--kind of feels less personal? shrugs. Again, it just depends on what you're going to do with the lenses.

sounds good.. is there any other wide angle lens you can recommend? Never was a fan of the 50MM guess I have to look into that some more..

maybe because it looks kind of awkward with the d90..

[scollins]

It will really depend on what you wind up shooting the most. I've got the 18-200 as my only lens currently, and I've rented the 70-200 VR a few times. What I almost always find myself lacking is reach. So for what I tend to shoot the most, I'm looking towards longer glass (and/or the ability to use a teleconverter.)

If I could swing the budget, this is what I'd like to have:
14-24 F/2.8 (18 has been plenty wide enough for me so far, so 14 should satisfy my needs just fine.) Since I'm shooting crop body, I could add the Tokina 11-16 if I need UWA.

24-70 F/2.8 (I've got to cover the middle range somehow, I still have kids' birthdays to shoot.)

70-200 F/2.8 (I've found this range to be great for shooting the kids soccer matches, basketball games and ballet recitals.)

200-400 F/4. I recently learned that 200mm, even at 300mm crop equivalent, isn't nearly enough reach to shoot events like the Blue Angels, auto racing, or babes in bikinis on the beach.

TC-14EII - to add a little reach without sacrificing too much quality or speed.

I'm partial to zooms, but even a few long primes wouldn't be out of the question.

The 18-200 is a good lens. It isn't spectacular, but it will perform better than the two crap lenses you already know about. My suggestion is to buy it and then spend a few months shooting. Figure out what you shoot the most, and what lens meets that need the best. Keep the 18-200 and add that next lens to the collection.

[TWiTCHY]

On my D300, I found the 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (rent) to be sufficient for anything. I sold my WA Tamron because I found myself using it the least.

I wouldn't bother with the 50mm. Spend the $100 on more memory cards, better filters, or an extra battery. Those will serve you better in the long run.

[rodi]

whatever you do, do NOT get the 18-200mm.
get something that encourages creative expression - not a do-all lens.
get a 50mm or the new 35mm - make yourself only use that one lens of a single focal length. it'll help to challenge yourself to achieve composition awareness.

hell, get rid of your 18-55 and 55-200, too. you won't get more than $50 for them, so just hide them and don't use them. crutches.

[TL]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

what is the difference between the new and the older version?

Below is from the Nikon website about the new VR II lenses

New Nikon Product Announcements!

Nikon 18-200mm VR II Lens: New VR II technology has been added to Nikon's versatile 18-200mm AF-S lens, allowing even greater Vibration Reduction capabilities.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII Lens: Nano Crystal coatings & improved VRII technology make this skillfully reengineered lens much better for photographers with higher resolution D-SLRs. It’s a "must have" for serious shooters.

For more information visit www.nikonusa.com

[TL]

18 - 200 is $$$

what are your thoughts on the 18 -105 VR lens compare to the 55 - 200 VR?

I'm asking cause they're more in my price range.

[jpsum]

prime lens if you could afford it.

[TWiTCHY]

If I were you with a budget of $1500...

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D - $1100
http://www.adorama.com/NK80200AFNU.html

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - $400
http://www.adorama.com/TN1224NKAF.html

$1100 + $400 = $1500

There's your WA and tele!
Don't bother with Nikon's DX WAs. Overpriced, twice as much as the Tokina, and Tokinas are pretty good for the price!

[Inspired]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

If I were you with a budget of $1500...

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D - $1100
http://www.adorama.com/NK80200AFNU.html

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - $400
http://www.adorama.com/TN1224NKAF.html

$1100 + $400 = $1500

There's your WA and tele!

The 80-200 seems a bit overkill for me. Seems like I never really shoot with such huge zoom..

I most likely narrowed it down to 2 lens. The 18-200 VR or the 12-24 VR..

[TWiTCHY]

Originally Posted by twinturbo335

The 80-200 seems a bit overkill for me. Seems like I never really shoot with such huge zoom..

I most likely narrowed it down to 2 lens. The 18-200 VR or the 12-24 VR..

The 12-24mm has VR? Omg I want.


Wait no it doesnt, lol.

If the 80-200mm is overkill for you, then the only telephoto I would recommend is the 70-300mm VR.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by TL

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII Lens: Nano Crystal coatings & improved VRII technology make this skillfully reengineered lens much better for photographers with higher resolution D-SLRs. It’s a "must have" for serious shooters.

GACK!!!! Adorama is listing that lens at $2,400! Damn, that is a $600 price jump from the current 70-200. I'm hoping that price is just speculative at this point, but I don't see where Nikon has improved it by over $600....

Hopefully this will put downward pressure on the current 70-200, either new or used. The real pisser is that used 80-200 AF-S's have jumped about $300 in the last few months. They were running around $1,100, now they are hovering around $1,500 to $1,800!

[1013mm]

this is what i have and serves me good....

Nikon 17-88mm F2.8
Nikon 50mm F1.4
Nikon 80-200mm F2.8

I probably might only need a super wide.

[TWiTCHY]

17-55mm ftw

Loved that lens.