I want a reasonably good all-around lens for a Nikon D90. I will also be buying an 70-200 F2.8 and other more specific use cameras, but I want one for daily use. I want it for both indoor as well as outdoor/scenery type use, at LEAST 18-200mm.
Anyone have experience with both of these …
Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Asph. Macro Lens for Select Nikon Digital SLR ($600 at B&H)
vs
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR Autofocus Lens ($700 at B&H)
I’d go for the 18-200 Nikkor lens. I’ve heard many good things about it, and I’m saving up for one for my D90. I’ve never heard anything about the Tamron lens.
I own an Nikon D60…and I’m about to get the D90…I was wondering if this lens below would work on both cameras?
Nikon NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Zoom Lens
Its says:
Compatibility: This lens is designed exclusively for Nikon DX format SLR cameras.
Yes. All the D## (D40, D80, D90, etc) series cameras, as well as the D100-300,D1, and D2 are in fact DX format SLRs.
BTW, DX just basically means that the sensor is about half the size of a normal 35mm film negative, and lenses built for it can only cover that area. Technically they can work on most Nikon SLRs. But on bodies with film or bigger sensors (eg D700, D3), the corners will be left dark.
i was wondering if it will fit these models:
D40
D40x
D50
D60
D70
D80
D90
D100
D200
D300
D3
D3x
???
yes, it will fit all except the D3 and D3X, also don’t forget it will not fit the D700.
The lens you are selling is a gem! I would consider keeping it unless you have a replacement.
I have a Nikon D90 and want to get a ‘prime’ lens and was told the 50mm is a good all round option. However I have read that on the DX format nikons this equates to 75mm, whereas a 35mm would equate to 50mm. Please help – very confused!
Thanks.
I own both a 50mm f/1.8 and a 35mm f/2.0 lens, so it’s easy for me to answer this question. Get the 35mm f/2.0 lens (just make sure it’s a new one and not an older one).
In brief, the 50mm f/1.4 lens on your D90 will have a field of view like a 75mm lens. That does make it good for portraits, but it makes it lousy for a "walk-around" lens. It’s not wide enough in my opinion for general usage and you’ll find yourself (indoors) having to take steps back. Yes, the f/1.4 aperture is quite useful, but the bokeh (out of focus highlights/softness) is horrible on the 50mm f/1.4.
The 35mm f/2.0 is very sharp and the "wideness" relative to the 50mm is much more useful. F/2.0 is still a wide aperture, which makes the lens useful in low light situations (especially when used in conjunction with the high ISO capabilities of your D90).
Another thing: with the 35mm f/2.0, you can crop your images if you need to magnify a part of the overall shot. With the 50mm, if you can’t frame it, you can’t recover it.
If you want an good all-around option, the 35mm f/2.0 is the better choice–less limiting and more wide.
If affordability is your key goal, consider the 50mm f/1.8 over the 50mm f/1.4.
In the DX format Nikons, the 35mm f/2.0 would give you the "normal" view and BTW, this is why Nikon recently issued a new 35mm f/2.8 AF-S lens–to give the "normal" view to APS SLRs like the D40 and D60.
The older 35mm f/2.0 lenses had a problem with oil on the aperture blades, which was resolved in the newer 35mm f/2.0 lenses. So don’t get an older version 35mm f/2.0.
Recent Comments