Recommend new Lense for Nikon D90

janesssssy

janesssssy

janesssssy

Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2004
Posts
3,450
Location
Wiltshire
Hello, My Wife is complaining about the standard kit lense that she got at christmas. (god shes moving fast, gonna cost me a fourtune)

She wants an upgrade from the 18-105mm. She wants somthing with a longer zoom.

Any suggestions? - please keep them sensible as I havn't got a money tree in my back garden :)
 
Last edited:
What are the issues?
The 18-105 lens is actually very good and very sharp.

If she wants a larger aperture or faster AF then you need to look at the 17-55.
If she wants more reach, then the 70-300 VR (make sure its the VR version), is a good upgrade.
 
I've got a Sigma 70-210mm APO for only £70 in a sales thread in the MM. I'm also in Wiltshire so you could visit to try it on the camera first.
 
Last edited:
Reviews at:
www.slrgear.com
www.photozone.de


The 300mm end is not so good but usable stopped down, and in any case better than anything else for the money. Form the 70-200mm end it really is very sharp.


I'm buying one despite the fact that I have an 80-200 2.8 pro nikor.
 
janesssssy said:
This sounds about right, any good reviews or recommendations? As i'd like to see what the 300mm does.
Click to expand...

I had this lens a wile back and got some good results from it. You cant go wrong with it really for the money. Here are a few I shot a wile back when I owned it. Both wide open at 300mm

3125408814_5d04b613b2.jpg


3104591207_d66a33a2fd.jpg
 
Willis said:
I had this lens a wile back and got some good results from it. You cant go wrong with it really for the money. Here are a few I shot a wile back when I owned it. Both wide open at 300mm
Click to expand...


What was the reason you sold it? Needed money for a 70-200 vr?

Ever considered owning both?
 
D.P. said:
What was the reason you sold it? Needed money for a 70-200 vr?

Ever considered owning both?
Click to expand...

After the 70-300mm I went down the 80-200mm F2.8 route as I wanted some faster class and found it to be very sharp I was then offered a 70-200mm 2.8 VR for silly money so upgraded to that. Since then I have gone FF with my D3 so have no use for the 70-300mm.

I just wanted 2.8 across the board. 14-24 24-70 70-200 plus I have the 85mm f1.4 & 50mm f1.4 would love the 300mm 2.8 but cant see me using it for the photography I shoot.

If I need the extra reach which I dont most of the time I have 2 x teleconverter that bumps it up to 400mm f5.6 and despite what people have said at 2x I found it usable at 400mm.
 
RIght.

I'm slowly buying into 2.8 pro glass but actually think I will miss the lightweight options. I love my 80-200 2.8 Af-D but the focus is a little hit and miss on my D70, the lens is known to suffer from back focus at close distances which is a shame, and 200mm is not the same sharpness as 80-180.

I will no doubt upgrade the 80-200 to the 70-200 in the next 18 months. But I'm thinking of picking up a 70-300 VR. In august I am going to canada and will be doing a lot of back country hiking. The 80-200 is out of the question for some of the multi-day stuff but even some long single day hikes (15miles ,4000ft or more) the 80-200 really start to weigh down on my back. I can't help but think a 16-85 + 70-300 makes an excellent travel combo and hiking setup. The down side is I will have to start saving all over again for the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8!!! And I want to own the 24-70 before buying a D700 or its replacement.... I should just win the lottery!

The 70-300 is full frame and I have heard FF users appreciate the lens.
 
Last edited:
as other have said 70-300mm VR is the best for the mid range budget.

I would post some pictures i've taken with mine but i must have about 4 months worth of RAW's to process and ZERO time to do it!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom