Upgrading to a Nikon D90?

~D~ · 14 Sep 2009 at 11:08

D.P. said:
There is no 50mm prime with VR! And probably never will be

Yea, sorry, I meant AF-S as Mud pointed out.

D.P. said:
Why on earth would you want lenses with VR and not AF-S???
AF-S is standard and has been for 10-15 years. Every new lens has AF-S. AF-S is faster, more precise and quieter.

Because of cost. A non-AF-S f1.8 50mm is about £80, one with AF-S is about £250, which is a massive increase and one I cannot justify, but if I retain AF with the D90 then in the long run it seems justifiable.

I want the option to buy AF lenses without losing auto focus.

I also already have a 50-200mm AF-S (which was surprisingly cheap) but I was just listing the lenses I wanted in total. At the moment I just have this and my kit lens.

D.P. · 14 Sep 2009 at 17:40

~D~ said:
Yea, sorry, I meant AF-S as Mud pointed out.

Because of cost. A non-AF-S f1.8 50mm is about £80, one with AF-S is about £250, which is a massive increase and one I cannot justify, but if I retain AF with the D90 then in the long run it seems justifiable.

I want the option to buy AF lenses without losing auto focus.

I also already have a 50-200mm AF-S (which was surprisingly cheap) but I was just listing the lenses I wanted in total. At the moment I just have this and my kit lens.

The difference in cost between the AF-S 50mm 1.4 and the non AF-S (but AF-D) 50mm 1.8 is not the AF-S at all. The previous 50mm 1.4 AF-D was also about 250. The increased cost is due to improved optics, larger aperture, better build quality, etc. Therefore you cannot compare the 2.

If this is your main lens concern, then buy the 35mm 1.8 AF-S DX lens which will become a true 50mmm prime on a DX camera. This will set you back 170£ which is actually a lot cheaper than the inferior older non-DX 35mm lens.

robmiller · 14 Sep 2009 at 18:38

~D~ said:
Because of cost. A non-AF-S f1.8 50mm is about £80, one with AF-S is about £250, which is a massive increase and one I cannot justify

Do you really think the difference between the AF-D 50mm f/1.8 and the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 is due to AF-S?

~D~ · 14 Sep 2009 at 21:23

robmiller said:
Do you really think the difference between the AF-D 50mm f/1.8 and the AF-S 50mm f/1.4 is due to AF-S?

I did till now

(though I thought they both had f1.8 versions)

I've seen pictures with 50mm AF-D 1.8's and they look amazingly sharp and I'd be more than happy with the DOF from a 1.8. Also, for a price like £80, it seems a steal, but I wouldn't want to lose AF. Eventually I also want a 105mm macro, which is ~£300 Af-D, as opposed to £500+ for the AF-S version (I'd also use it as a 'normal' lens too).

I appreciate that the AF-S versions also have better build quality, IQ etc (as D.P. pointed out) but unless there is a huge noticeable difference then it seems better for me (from a time and cost perspective) to get the D90 + the AF-D lenses soon rather than keep the D60 and not be able to afford any lenses for a long time.

Does that logic seem ok or am I a bit off?

D.P. · 15 Sep 2009 at 08:49

~D~ said:
I did till now (though I thought they both had f1.8 versions)

I've seen pictures with 50mm AF-D 1.8's and they look amazingly sharp and I'd be more than happy with the DOF from a 1.8. Also, for a price like £80, it seems a steal, but I wouldn't want to lose AF. Eventually I also want a 105mm macro, which is ~£300 Af-D, as opposed to £500+ for the AF-S version (I'd also use it as a 'normal' lens too).

I appreciate that the AF-S versions also have better build quality, IQ etc (as D.P. pointed out) but unless there is a huge noticeable difference then it seems better for me (from a time and cost perspective) to get the D90 + the AF-D lenses soon rather than keep the D60 and not be able to afford any lenses for a long time.

Does that logic seem ok or am I a bit off?

Well, it is correct to an extent. If you want a 50mm 1.8 then you will loose AF on some budget Nikon DSLRs. Nikon rectified this by releasing the special 35mm DX.
You can also look at the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 which is cheaper and supposedly better than the Nikon.
Probably in the next 12-18 months Nikon will release a 50mm 1.8 with AF-S but it is not a key lens anymore (the 35mm DX replaced it basically).

For Macro work you will mostly manual focus so I don't really see the problem here. You also have lots of cheap AF-S options Nikon 60mm, Sigma 70/105mm. Tamron are updating their lenses with inbuilt motor.

The D90 is great camera but I wouldn't upgrade to it just to get an auto-focus motor and I certainly wouldn't buy inferior lenses to fund the D90. Buy the best lenses you can that are suitable for your tasks.

Gregeff · 15 Sep 2009 at 17:54

The comments about AF-S being quicker arn't always true, it depends on the implementation. The AF-D 50mm 1.4 has faster focusing than the AF-S 50mm 1.4....

robmiller · 15 Sep 2009 at 18:28

That said, the 50mm f/1.8 is certainly no slouch. It's up there with the sharpest lenses on any platform, really.

D.P. · 15 Sep 2009 at 18:53

Gregeff said:
The comments about AF-S being quicker arn't always true, it depends on the implementation. The AF-D 50mm 1.4 has faster focusing than the AF-S 50mm 1.4....

This is true, especially of 3rd party lenses. But it depends on camera body (a d3 will definitely focus faster than a D70 with an AF-D lens) and on the lens type. Normal primes are a lot faster to focus than a big heavy telephoto lens where AF-S makes a big improvement

~D~ · 17 Sep 2009 at 12:14

D.P. said:
Well, it is correct to an extent. If you want a 50mm 1.8 then you will loose AF on some budget Nikon DSLRs. Nikon rectified this by releasing the special 35mm DX. You can also look at the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 which is cheaper and supposedly better than the Nikon.

Fair enough, but for the 50mm at £80 and the 35mm DX at ~£190 that's already > £100 difference which is significant to me. The Sigma 50mm HSM is ~£300

D.P. said:
For Macro work you will mostly manual focus so I don't really see the problem here. You also have lots of cheap AF-S options Nikon 60mm, Sigma 70/105mm. Tamron are updating their lenses with inbuilt motor.

The Sigma 70/105mm lenses do not have HSM and the 150mm is very expensive., so I'll lose AF on these, and even though I'd be working with MF for macro I'd like to be able to use them for other types of photography.

D.P. said:
The D90 is great camera but I wouldn't upgrade to it just to get an auto-focus motor and I certainly wouldn't buy inferior lenses to fund the D90. Buy the best lenses you can that are suitable for your tasks.

The AF-S lenses might be the best available at the moment, and thus reflected in the price, but the older AF-D lenses are still great lenses and the pictures from these lenses are pin sharp and I personally wouldn't hesitate in getting a £80 50mm over a £250 AF-S 50mm after comparing pictures of the two, provided I retained AF.

Basically I want to get some new lenses now and the way I see it is that with some initial investment (a D90) I could buy a couple of lenses in the short term whereas if I waited till I could justify buying a couple of AF-S lenses I'd be waiting a year at least.

DanF · 17 Sep 2009 at 12:48

Well if you sell your D60 it'll fetch what £250-280. To buy a D90 new would be say £650. That's £350-400 difference that you could spend on AF-S lenses straight away. Also when you get the D90 you'd want to get the 50mm 1.8 so that £350-400 becomes £430-480 to shell out on lenses. 35mm AF-S is about £160 leaving £270-320 for a macro. 2nd hand Sigma 150mm macros go for about £300. This would give you 2 superior lenses for the same outlay as getting a D90 + 50mm 1.8 + 100~mm macro.

Also the issue with the 50mm AF-D is that the field of view on a digital camera is different to what it was originally used for on a film camera. 28-35mm lenses are the new "normal" view prime for DX sensor cameras. That means that the lens to compare the new 35mm AF-S is actually the older 35mm F2 AF lens which costs more at about £200 new and is also said to be not as good. The only real reason to get this one is if you where thinking of getting a full frame camera later on but they cost a lot of money.

D.P. · 17 Sep 2009 at 13:27

~D~ said:
Fair enough, but for the 50mm at £80 and the 35mm DX at ~£190 that's already > £100 difference which is significant to me. The Sigma 50mm HSM is ~£300

The Sigma 70/105mm lenses do not have HSM and the 150mm is very expensive., so I'll lose AF on these, and even though I'd be working with MF for macro I'd like to be able to use them for other types of photography.

The AF-S lenses might be the best available at the moment, and thus reflected in the price, but the older AF-D lenses are still great lenses and the pictures from these lenses are pin sharp and I personally wouldn't hesitate in getting a £80 50mm over a £250 AF-S 50mm after comparing pictures of the two, provided I retained AF.

Basically I want to get some new lenses now and the way I see it is that with some initial investment (a D90) I could buy a couple of lenses in the short term whereas if I waited till I could justify buying a couple of AF-S lenses I'd be waiting a year at least.

YOur logic just does not make any sense. You want to save money by buying a £700 camera which will get out dated anyway instead of paying £700 on lenses which wont get outdated.

You still seem really confused at why the 50mm 1.4 costs £250 - it has nothing to do with the fact it is AF-S. Have another look at the 35mm 18 DX. It can be purchased for £165 while the 50mm 1.8 costs £105 now. I definitely know which lens I would rather have.

For macro lenses, I wouldn't worry about having AF-S. It just isn't that useful. Macro lenses are slow to focus anyway and manual focus is the norm. By all means, buy the D90, it is a great camera. But don't scrimp on any lenses by buying a new camera. Otherwise you will be in the same situation in 2 years time.

An if you really want to use old lenses then a D300 would be the way to go.

~D~ · 17 Sep 2009 at 17:36

D.P. said:
YOur logic just does not make any sense. You want to save money by buying a £700 camera which will get out dated anyway instead of paying £700 on lenses which wont get outdated.

For macro lenses, I wouldn't worry about having AF-S. It just isn't that useful. Macro lenses are slow to focus anyway and manual focus is the norm. By all means, buy the D90, it is a great camera. But don't scrimp on any lenses by buying a new camera. Otherwise you will be in the same situation in 2 years time.

An if you really want to use old lenses then a D300 would be the way to go.

I think I get where you are coming from and thanks DanF, that was a useful post.

I think I will invest in better glass and keep the D60 body as it isn't really limiting me at the moment.

A couple of different questions..

- Does the f2.8 version of the 18-55mm kit lens offer better optics or just a wider aperture? (not looking to buy it but just wondering)

- Why the hell are Tamron lenses so cheap? :S Jessops do the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro with built in motor for £170. I thought Tamrons were a respected brand? The Nikon equivalent is well over double the price.

Tooks · 17 Sep 2009 at 18:09

~D~ said:
I think I get where you are coming from and thanks DanF, that was a useful post.

I think I will invest in better glass and keep the D60 body as it isn't really limiting me at the moment.

A couple of different questions..

- Does the f2.8 version of the 18-55mm kit lens offer better optics or just a wider aperture? (not looking to buy it but just wondering)

- Why the hell are Tamron lenses so cheap? :S Jessops do the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro with built in motor for £170. I thought Tamrons were a respected brand? The Nikon equivalent is well over double the price.

There isn't a kit 18-55mm with an aperture of f2.8. :confused:

Do you mean the 17-55mm f2.8? If so, then it is in a whole different league build quality wise, and it's a professional lens with nano-coated glass. It's a stunning lens, and the DX format flagship really.

A 'sleeper' and a good value lens you should try is the 18-70mm 'kit' lens. It's slightly faster than the 18-55mm (nearly a stop), but has good edge to edge sharpness, and has a weather seal at the mount end. It's often overlooked by people because it's 'just a kit lens', and therefore can be found pretty cheaply. Every Nikon camera bag should have one IMO!

Re the Tamron question, it still is a respected brand. The reason the Nikon is more expensive is because it has VR built in, is nicely built, and is a Nikon so there is an element of brand premium. Plus, the Tamron you mention is in cut throat competition with its Sigma rival, and that tends to drive down price. Don't forget also that Jessops is struggling financially, so there is an element of sell it at any cost...

D.P. · 18 Sep 2009 at 08:50

~D~ said:
I think I get where you are coming from and thanks DanF, that was a useful post.

I think I will invest in better glass and keep the D60 body as it isn't really limiting me at the moment.

A couple of different questions..

- Does the f2.8 version of the 18-55mm kit lens offer better optics or just a wider aperture? (not looking to buy it but just wondering)

- Why the hell are Tamron lenses so cheap? :S Jessops do the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro with built in motor for £170. I thought Tamrons were a respected brand? The Nikon equivalent is well over double the price.

The Nikon 2.8 17-55mm lens is very different to the 18-55 kit lens. The most obvious difference is the build quality, it is made like a tank. Yes, it is a lot faster lens being 2.8 constantly throughout the focal rnage. The image quality is of course excellent, including micro contrast and brokeh. The auto-focus is lightning fast.

Nothing wrong with Tamron lenses as all. But you have to be clear what lenses are you comparing. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is an excellent lens compared to the Nikon 17-55 2.8 - but has worse build quality and slow focus. Quality control is also worse with many soft lenses. But the Tamron 70-300 is no where near as good as the Nikon 70-300 VR. The Nikon 70-300 ED (Non VR) will be around 100 but is not recommended.