DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

Let me begin by apologizing for not having a complete profile. I now some info is required, but large sections of the relevant pages won't load for me. I will attempt to fill this info again shortly.

I am looking at getting my first ever DSLR, and am leaning towards the Nikon D90.

My main passion is wildlife, but in reality that is not something I get to photograph all too often. I'm also interested in lanscape, buildings, lanscape and pretty much a bit of everything I guess.

I've been thinking about several different lense combinations, and am currently leaning towards starting with the 18-200 VR and later getting the 70-300 VR.

It is my understanding that the first is a good all around lense, and great for trips etc' when you want to travel light. The second lense will give me the extra 100mm for wildlife and nice close ups of flowers etc.

Do you think this is a good combo? I thought of getting an 18-105 or 18-70 instead of the 18-200, but I really like being able to take just the one lense and still having a relatively large focal length covered.

Will I be missing out on anything on the short end with the 18-200? I have read that it is not as sharp as other lenses at around 18mm.

Any other suggestions will be appreciated!

I would probably have a look at these or similar....not a lot of difference in the price but better quality



Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 SP AF XR Di II LD Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 SP AF XR Di II LD
NEW! Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) with DA09 lens hood. Now with AF buil...more.


AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED (2.5x)

# Fast and constant f/2.8 maximum aperture through the entire focal range
# ED glass elements for high-resolution and high-contrast image even at maximum aperture
# Rotating zoom ring for precise zoom operation
# Filter: 77mm

Pa has made some good suggestions, the combination of the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 80-200 will give you very nice lenses for a similar price.

If you do want Nikkor AF-S VR then i would vote the 18-105 and the 70-300, you will find that you wont miss the extra 95mm that much, and you will be able to afford that 70-300mm VR sooner.

Well, don't let people talk you out of an 18-200mm VR lens - it is a great walk-around lens, as you have already suggested.

My understanding, from your post, is that you are buying your first DSLR. My suggestion to you would be to buy it with the 18-200mm VR, and then learn how to use your camera. As you come to understand the features of the camera and know more about your own particular style of photography, you will form more reliable opinions on what lenses you will want to buy.

So, my view is to buy the camera and the 18-200mm to start, and if you have extra money burning a hole in your pocket, I think you would get better versatility buying a flash than another lens at this point.

Good luck with your decision - let us know what transpires.

the foto fanatic wrote:My understanding, from your post, is that you are buying your first DSLR. My suggestion to you would be to buy it with the 18-200mm VR, and then learn how to use your camera. As you come to understand the features of the camera and know more about your own particular style of photography, you will form more reliable opinions on what lenses you will want to buy.

Until you get to see what specific focal lengths give you, it is difficult to really know what you need or want.

In regards the D90, my other half recently purchased one, after deciding to switch from the dark side (canon) - and hasn't looked back. It's a great little camera, with the one drawback being when you start looking at better lenses, it looks really small on them

She started with the 18-105, but afterwards she wished it had been the 18-200 - better lens construction. So I think you have a great choice of starting

the only warning ... wait til you learn about 'lens envy' - and that is where photography becomes expensive for a while!

Hi and welcome.

Looking4Help wrote:I am looking at getting my first ever DSLR, and am leaning towards the Nikon D90.

Which is probably the best of Nikon bunch for beginners, if it can be afforded.

My main passion is wildlife, but in reality that is not something I get to photograph all too often. I'm also interested in lanscape, buildings, lanscape and pretty much a bit of everything I guess.

What you're interested in, and what you photograph, are often two entirely different things.

Start simple, learn the basics, and then move ahead.

Keep in mind that your camera body should be regarded as a disposable item, but your glass, should you become truly interested in photography, should come to be regarded as a longer term investment.

I've been thinking about several different lense combinations, and am currently leaning towards starting with the 18-200 VR and later getting the 70-300 VR.

It is my understanding that the first is a good all around lense, and great for trips etc' when you want to travel light. The second lense will give me the extra 100mm for wildlife and nice close ups of flowers etc.

Yes, and no.

As with the suggestions of others, I too would recommend the 18-200 as a good starter lens, from which you can then build up based upon what you're learning to to, and what you actually end up photographing.

I would probably not recommend the 70-300 at this time; wait, and see where your interests take you. The extra 100mm reach is really not a lot, and you might find that the 80-400 might be a better fit for you, but again, we're a bit too early for that.

Will I be missing out on anything on the short end with the 18-200? I have read that it is not as sharp as other lenses at around 18mm.

it will cover most of what you may want to do. The Sigma 10-20 is a good, inexpensive and fun lens that will cover the ultra-wide end of things for you, and for little more than $100 or so, you should be able to pick up the 50mm f/1.8 which will provide you with excellent sharpness and good optical speed.

With just those three lenses, I would suggest that you would have a good workable kit that will address more than 90% of what you might wish to shoot at this stage, and it will provide you with more than ample scope to get the images that you want, learn a whole lot of stuff, and still be a very lightweight walkaround kit as and when you need it to be.

Thanks for all the replies, they were very helpful!

I guess I'll be starting with the 18-200 and see where things go from there.

I never even thought of getting a flash at this point, but I guess that's because I'm not really sure when one is needed. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to read up about the use of flashes.