DSLR Lenses?

embrik

So, I've recently begun getting back into photography in a big way. I picked up a Nikon D90 with the kit lens (18-105 VR) and I've got a nice CP filter. I've also got a great tripod and the remote for the camera.

What I really want to get into is macro photos. I've actually come up with some great shots using the digital macro on a Canon P&S, but obviously I know I can do better. So I'm looking for two things -

[strike]1) Can anyone recommend a good macro lens that will work with my D90? Cost isn't really an issue, I'm looking for quality here.[/strike] - Solved

2) I'd also like to get a decent telephoto, and I was looking at the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens. Is this a good lens? Are there better options?

Additionally, if anyone has other recommendations that might help someone getting back into this, I'd appreciate it. Any wide-angle lens recommendations?

RenegadeSilence

You could try these three items for the macro:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37171-REG/Nikon_2657_BR_2A_Lens_Reversing_Ring.html
and
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37172-REG/Nikon_2629_BR_3_Mount_Adapter_Ring.html
with
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1234977636&sr=1-1

Essentially what the first two items do is allow you to reverse mount the lens to get a macro.
While you said money isn't an issue you do get more bang for your buck, as you get the versatility of the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens.

I personally haven't done it yet, but am planning to when I get the money.

Also there is a photo thread in the AC, you could try asking your questions there and potentially get more responses, if you haven't already.

Dark_Side

As a Nikon guy myself, although I haven't been shooting much at all lately, I usually see 3 lenses always recommended: a 50mm prime (which you can even get with Nikon's AF-S now), a 18-200 VR, and a 12-24 wide angle (either Nikon's or Tokina's).

The 50mm prime is my favorite. The f1.8 is fast and sharp as hell, and only around a 100 bucks new. For 200 more you can get the f1.4, but I don't know if you really need too. The 18-200 VR is one of Nikon's best lenses, and will probably be your main lens if you pick it up. I don't know what you're planning to shoot, but if you really need the super telephoto, I can't tell you to much about those. The 12-24 is a wide angle lens great for landscapes. The nikon version of it is 1000 bucks, so most people just get the Tokina, which is absolutely comparable and 1/2 the price.

Dark Moon

Dark_Side wrote: »

As a Nikon guy myself, although I haven't been shooting much at all lately, I usually see 3 lenses always recommended: a 50mm prime (which you can even get with Nikon's AF-S now), a 18-200 VR, and a 12-24 wide angle (either Nikon's or Tokina's).

The 50mm prime is my favorite. The f1.8 is fast and sharp as hell, and only around a 100 bucks new. For 200 more you can get the f1.4, but I don't know if you really need too. The 18-200 VR is one of Nikon's best lenses, and will probably be your main lens if you pick it up. I don't know what you're planning to shoot, but if you really need the super telephoto, I can't tell you to much about those. The 12-24 is a wide angle lens great for landscapes. The nikon version of it is 1000 bucks, so most people just get the Tokina, which is absolutely comparable and 1/2 the price.

Skip the 18-200 unless you absolutely need a superzoom. They're ridiculously slow and expensive for what boils down to a location scouting lens. Build quality is suspect and the distortion involved with an 11x zoom lens is exactly as you'd expect - terrible. It is most definitely not one of Nikon's best lenses.

For macro work, nothing beats a dedicated macro lens. For small working distances, the Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED N will do the trick. If you'd rather shoot from a bit further away, the ~100mm version - Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR is an even nicer lens and has the advantage of being VR for when you want to do some non-macro work.

Skip the 50mm lens and get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 when it comes out. It's around the same price ($200 new) and is much closer to a 50mm FOV on a crop sensor like the D90's. I find 50mm's on a DX sensor are generally just a bit too long to be useful in many indoor and/or portraiture situations. Keep in mind that this new lens is a DX-only lens, however, which you shouldn't buy if you plan to move to an FX sensor camera in the near future.

As for telephoto, the 70-300 is an okay prosumer lens and will get the job done in a pinch, but if you're serious and budget isn't an issue something like a Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR is much more lens. Unfortunately it is also much more expensive, at around $2k. Something like a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 might be a better idea, with a price tag of about $1k and an even longer reach (though you sacrifice 30mm on the wide end).

For wide-angles, Nikon has you covered. Their 12-24mm f/2.8 is the best wide angle lens you can buy, bar none. The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 version isn't bad, but you do sacrifice a fair bit in build quality and a full stop of max aperture - of course, for a much more reasonable price. The Sigma 10-20mm is nice too, but is a DX lens that won't be compatible if you ever upgrade to an FX sensor, which is something you'll as a a Nikon shooter likely do.

Saying that cost isn't an issue when discussing photo equipment is a dangerous thing. If you can provide a precise budget of how much you'd like to spend it'd be much easier to recommend quality lenses that also fit within your price bracket.

embrik

Yeah, I definitely should have been more explicit for costs. I could see spending no more than say $800 per lens at this point, but if I can get away with less, that's cool. Looking at the Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED N you referenced, Dark Moon, that looks like a great option for me.
In the future, I might spend more, but as this is essentially a very serious hobby at this point, I couldn't justify 1-2k lenses right now.

Dark_Side

Skip the 50mm lens and get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 when it comes out. It's around the same price ($200 new) and is much closer to a 50mm FOV on a crop sensor like the D90's. I find 50mm's on a DX sensor are generally just a bit too long to be useful in many indoor and/or portraiture situations. Keep in mind that this new lens is a DX-only lens, however, which you shouldn't buy if you plan to move to an FX sensor camera in the near future.

This is definitely true, it can cause you some headaches because of the crop factor. I didn't even know Nikon was coming out with a nice 35mm, that will be sweet.

I do think Dark_Moon's cutting the 18-200 a little short, but he knows more about lenses than I do. I do know that pretty much every review out there loves it, I like it because it's so versatile as a lens.

Dark Moon

Dark_Side wrote: »

I do think Dark_Moon's cutting the 18-200 a little short, but he knows more about lenses than I do. I do know that pretty much every review out there loves it, I like it because it's so versatile as a lens.

Well, it's a great superzoom. I just completely disagree with the superzoom philosophy of "You only need one lens." This runs contrary to the entire point of using a DSLR over a point and shoot - you can change lenses easily and obtain better IQ at the cost of having to carry more stuff. For half the cost of a superzoom you can pick up a Canon SX110 that'll provide you the same focal length and similar IQ with an even smaller package.

The 60mm is a great little lens, emrik. Be very very sure you're getting the "EG N" version, though. It's the newly redesigned edition with nanocoating on the front element and internal focussing and all sorts of new jazz that makes it vastly superior to its predecessor (the "D" edition).

embrik

Dark Moon wrote: »

Dark_Side wrote: »

I do think Dark_Moon's cutting the 18-200 a little short, but he knows more about lenses than I do. I do know that pretty much every review out there loves it, I like it because it's so versatile as a lens.

Well, it's a great superzoom. I just completely disagree with the superzoom philosophy of "You only need one lens." This runs contrary to the entire point of using a DSLR over a point and shoot - you can change lenses easily and obtain better IQ at the cost of having to carry more stuff. For half the cost of a superzoom you can pick up a Canon SX110 that'll provide you the same focal length and similar IQ with an even smaller package.

The 60mm is a great little lens, emrik. Be very very sure you're getting the "EG N" version, though. It's the newly redesigned edition with nanocoating on the front element and internal focussing and all sorts of new jazz that makes it vastly superior to its predecessor (the "D" edition).

Is the EG N available yet? I don't see it on Nikon's website.

Dark Moon

Apparently they're calling it the ED edition as compared to the old D edition. Damn confusing naming conventions!

supertall

The 18-200 is a vacation/convenience lens. It gives you a larger focal range and less stuff to carry around at the cost of image quality. It has its place, but Dark Moon is right.

embrik

Dark Moon wrote: »

Apparently they're calling it the ED edition as compared to the old D edition. Damn confusing naming conventions!

Okay, I stopped at the camera store after work and tested out the 60mm. It quite clearly rocks, and is exactly what I was looking for. I've just bought it

At this point, I'll wait until the 1.8/f 35mm is released before going down that road, but I'd still like to consider the 70-300. Is it worth it? I've taken a bunch of shots at night, focusing on the Madison Capitol building, but I'd like to get in closer. Here's one shot that I took with the kit lens at 105. Having rooftop access is a privilege that I love to have

Gafoto

The reviews at Fred Miranda are your friend.