Hey Photog People: Question about lenses.

[CS]

So I finally broke down and bought myself a decent camera at the beginning of the summer (a Nikon N90S), and have been messing around with it all summer. Well, I have come to find that the current lense I've been using just isn't cutting it (currently shooting with a Sigma 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 ). So, my question is to all you supersick photo geaks out there: what's the best all-around, one-lense-will-get-me-by?

Yeah, I know, there is no such thing, but there has to be somthing for around $500 that'll be faster than the one I have and allow me to take pics besides when it's a bright sunny day. And I'm looking to use it to take biking, skiing, and maybe even climbing pics. Should I look for a prime, or would somthing like a Nikon AF 24-85mm f/2.8-4 be good? Thanks

[Storm11]

If you want one lens to start with, I would say start out right. Spend the extra money for a nice lens now so you don't have to turn around and buy one later. 28-120ish zoom would be good. I would definately try and go for Image Stabilization or whatever Nikon calls it and whatever their nicer glass is called...D-type lenses I think. Definately go for a Macro lens. Faster is always better...2.4 or something like that would probably be the fastest zoom lens you could find in that zoom range. Basically, the better/ more expensive the lens, the better the quaility of pictures. It's that simple. For $500 you could get a fairly nice lens. The one you mentioned would be a good start.

[summit]

It all depends on what you are trying to do...
But in the <$500 range:

The ultimate lens is the 50mm.

You can buy a manual focus Nikon 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 AIS for $15 used and it will be sharper and contrastier than 90% of the $1000+ zoom lenses. I'd reccomend buying one of these (or the AF version) no matter what other lense you buy (also they work great in lower light).

If you aren't shooting a lot of action, manual focus and/or prime (ie fixed focal length, not zoom) will save you a lot of money. Your F90s can handle almost any nikon lens ever made. That is one of the neat things about Nikon (I'm a Canon shooter).

A good prime setup is: 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 105mm f/2.5 (buy these used on ebay)

Anyhow, it is good that you recognize your Sigma 28-80 is a dogshit lens.

If you want a zoom,
I'd say a good cheap option is the Tokina or Sigma 24-70 or 28-70 2.8 (or 2.6-2.8) lenses. These are sharp durable and relatively cheap.
Things to usually avoid with zooms: Zooms with over a 3X ratio (especially third party), zooms with variable aperature (especially 3rd party)

*MAYBE* The Nikon 24-120 VR is Ok choice (because it is exceedingly versatile), but it's not gonna give you the crisp results of a prime lens or a 2.8 zoom. Being a 5X zoom, it sacrifices quality for versatility.

Is VR compatible withe the N90?

You would get better quality out of a Nikon 24-85 2.8-4.0 or the Sigma or Tokina 2.8 zooms.

(or skiing pictures I find I'm working 20-50mm most of the time, that will vary with your terrain and shooting style ofcourse)

Don't forget: The eye behind the lens is more important than the lens. The lens is only a tool.

Buy what matches what your shoot and the way you shoot.

[hop]

n90s= sweet body.
I have one of them, plus an old 8008 that is my travel/beater body. My collection of lenses consists of Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6, Tamron 28-70 f3.5-4.5, Nikon 300f4, and Nikon 80-200 2.8.
Of all these, I like the 300f4 the best. It's razor sharp, clear, and fast enough for me. The 80-200 is nice too; probably my best "overall" lens, but not long enough to get tight on tiny birds and far away whales. I got the Tamron as a travel lens to go on the 8008 before I went to Kenya and it served its purpose well, but now is somewhat mothballed. The 1:2 macro is nice though!
And the 28-70, $99 special is the sleeper kickass lens of all time. Light, not fast but who cares, durable (has been everywhere), and sharp enough for me.
If I had my way, I'd get a 17-35 to replace my 28-70, and that's it.

Bummer about N90s- the VS lenses don't VS! I tried a friends 80-400 and it was nice, but not noticeably faster or brighter or betterer, esp. since it didn't VS. And when you have it on full-time VS mode (on a VS compat. body) it will eat your batteries in about 20 minutes! In a light vs length battle, the 300f4 beat it out (YMMV).

Anyways, I'd be willing to sell my Tamron lens (LD glass, same as Nikon ED) for $175 if you're interested....

[CS]

Originally posted by hop

Anyways, I'd be willing to sell my Tamron lens (LD glass, same as Nikon ED) for $175 if you're interested....

Thanks, but I'm looking for a faster lense because I shoot primarily action stuff like biking and skiing come winter.

[summit]

Tamron Low Dispersion glass used in those lenses (required by design) does not bring them anywhere near the quality of the Nikkor G series lenses that use ED glass (if they were SP series then they would be the budget alternative). Those are consumer grade Tamron lenses and they suck! (At least the 70-300 (pretty much all 70/75-300s suck) the 28-70 is probably an *OK* zoom with its small range).

[Telepath]

I've got two Sigma EX lenses that I really like; one 28-70mm 2.8 and one 70-200 2.8. Compared to other lenses I've had/borrowed over time including high end Canon lenses borrowed from pro friends I'm amazed by the quality of the pictures I get from my Sigma EX-series lenses. True, a couple of the Canon ones have been slightly sharper and noticably faster but with one lens costing what I paid for both of mine and a still body I think I've got a pretty good deal. IMO the Sigma EX lenses are a great option if you have a limited budget. If I took more pictures and could justify it I'd get a Canon 35-350 for myself though; when I've borrowed them I really liked them - great range for a ski lens and not having an extremely light sensitive lens never bother me in snow.

[summit]

<gearnerd> Yes Canon L beats Sigma EX/Tamron SP/Tokina ATX, but those are great budget lenses. I love my Sigma 15mm 2.8EX fisheye and 105mm 2.8 EX macro. They are outstanding lenses and have reasonable price tags vs original brand. </gearnerd> Avoid any 3rd party lens that is not ATX/EX/SP.

[mtbakerskier]

depends on what your shooting, but here is a few options.
Dont Buy VS it costs more, and is only something i would buy if i had the extra cash, best spending hte money on good glass.
Nikon 24-120 great lense and very versatile.
other options would be getting some older used nikor glass, preferably the 2.8 stuff. Or to save even more money and still get great optics for a riduclously low price, buy some older used nikon mf glass, you will be suprised at the price.

Avoid aftermarket it at all possible. While hte higher end aftermarket stuff is ok, you will eventually want to upgrade it.

But that isnt to say that the sigma's ex series, espeically the 70-200 F2.8 has produced many sellable magazine shots, but be carfull not all ex series zooms are well made / sharp etc.

[bad_roo]

Lot of rubbish talked by camera geeks and a lot of received wisdom especially concerning optics quality.

Fact is that unless you're a pro photographer, you probably won't notice a great deal of image degradation with a zoom and if you're shooting digi for viewing on a screen it's often a moot point.

The convenience and ease of use of digitals with zoom lenses - even Sigmas - will outweigh the nth degree of loss of image quality for virtually all consumers virtually all of the time.

What's lazier? Carrying a zoom lens or regurgitating 'gear snob' arguments?

[Tippster]

A great deal:

Nikon zoom 35-105 f 3.5-4.5 AIS Macro
Cheap, versatile, and BOMBER. You'll get the hang of the manual zoom/focus quickly. I used to shoot Whitewater Rafting on the Eagle & Colorado Rivers w/one of these.

Others:

Nikon AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4.0D IF Micro Zoom Lens

[The AD]

I'd definitely go for a Nikkor lens. My gear is all Canon, but the only non-Canon lens I've owned annoys me. It's a Sigma 28-105/2.8-4 Aspherical. The quality is o.k. (but I think my old Canon 28-105 was better). The thing that annoys me is the autofocus is slower, and hunts much more than the Canon Ultrasonic lenses. I'm sure you'll find the same comparing the Nikkor and the Sigma. If you're taking lots of action shots you want a lens that can focus quickly and accurately.

And I agree with roo. Yeah, if you're a pro maybe you should start talking about prime lenses, but just about anyone else will greatly appreciate the convenience of a couple compact zooms. The plusses way outweight the negative of slight loss in quality and max aperture.

[freshie247]

Hey guys ,
good info on the thread.I've got a good eye,but lack the empirical experience when it comes to such matters.