Thread: Nikon D90
View Single Post
Old 24-03-2009, 03:50 PM   #36
High Supremacy Member
EJB's Avatar
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 36,148
Thanks Bro! That's why need to speak to experts like you for guidance. Nikon website quoted $229 for 50mm f/1.8, so maybe retail prices lower now?! Bo bian lah, done already Anyway, the SB-900 price is a promotional price applicable only when purchasing a DSLR.

Thanks also for posing that redundancy question back to me, my thinking is: for indoor portraits within certain distance, the 200mm might be too long, so I need a shorter lens, but compensated by a f/1.8 to give the blurred background and depth. Whereas outdoor, where the max of the 18-200mm can be put to use, say when on holidays seeing mountain and playing water, or out in the zoo 'shooting' the animals, I am afraid the quality of the 18-200mm wont be good when pushed to the limit at 200mm and f/5.6. Hence, the idea of getting a tele 300m f/2.8. Alternatively, I go for a wide 17-55 f/2.8 and a 70-200m f/2.8? Guess it's also the question of convenience vs quality?

Like to have more comments on whether I make sense in my thinking coz am new here, havent touched the SLR for 20-30 years (last I owned was the FE2) and lucky now to have discussion board - last time where got? The National Library was probably the only place for research and source of information. So, I do appreciate your comments very much!

Sadly, I'm no expert.

Yeah, I'm aware of the SB-900 special price, I got it at $600 myself.

The image of the 200mm at f/5.6 will be acceptable, however, don't expect the sky, there *is* a reason for the aperture to auto step down as you're zooming, to lessen the imperfections of the elements used within. The 300 f/2.8 weights a hefty 2.8KG+ alone, I don't think you'd want to lug it around though your concerns is not totally uncalled for.

If you're very particular about quality you shouldn't have gotten 18-200 in the first place. I would have opted the same setup you suggested for yourself: 17-55 f/2.8 with a 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Quality VS Convenience, a very subjective thing. To me, a 17-35 f/2.8 + 70-200VR is just about the right setup for me to bring for a holiday. Add a 10.5 FE and it's almost versatile.

Thus the 18-200 is what I call a versatile lense, it's not a dedicated piece of lens for dedicated or a particular usage though if you'd very much want, you can use it for sports/portraits/wildlife etc. Though your speed and image quality would be very much crippled.

17-35 (or 55) would be ideal for landscapes, wider shots, whereas the 70-200VR would suffice for wildlife/sports/actions/street parades. 10.5FE for a unique look through the VF etc.

It's really your call to decide. There's totally nothing wrong with owning a 18-200 and a 70-200VR and a 70-300VR. As long as you can justify it, and love it, it's good enough.

With a 50 f/1.8 and a 18-200mm, you've covered most of your general needs already. Your next lens will depend pretty much on what you intend to shoot most.

My experience with superzoom is that IQ is better on the long end than the wide end. Barrel distortion is quite noticeable on my Pentax DA 18-250mm at 18mm but is easily correctable in software. Fast long lens may be an overkill for most usage scenarios unless you are shooting birds or sports. In most cases you are likely to have enough light to get a pretty good shot out of your 18-200mm at 200mm.

If you're into macro photography, then definitely your next lens should be a prime macro. I think Nikon has one around 100mm, or you can get Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm.

Otherwise, you should consider a zoom wide angle lens like the 12-24mm, 11-16mm and a couple of others to choose form.
Coverage is pretty much like saying once you have that range, it's sufficient, but everybody's usage will pretty much differ. Covering a range is good, but it's not the end nor always sufficient.

Superzooms with low end and extensive range differences will produce undesirable image distortion (barrel and pincushion), however, if you're talking about the 70-200VR, it is inevident it is affected as well, but the notability by far, is much much much lesser than the 70-300 or 18-200.

A wrong thinking is that amatuers or serious hobbyists should avoid fast long lens as it may be too dedicated for a particular usage. That's why in my FAQ I clearly & distinctly warned people not to be too obsessed with constraining themselves on what the lens is good for but rather what the photographer should do to make the best of the lens.

The 70-200VR is good for a lot of things IMO:

i) Parade shows (disneyland etc...)
ii) Portraits (crisp bokeh image etc...)
iii) Birding/Nature
iv) Landscapes

and more. I personally don't feel it's an overkill, but rather how one perceives the lens to be used and the imagination of course.

Eg: 12-24 cannot use to do portraits? You'll be amazed how a friend of mine will shoot people down when they claim wide angles is not good for portraits by demonstrating his portrait shots using 12-24.

Don't limit yourself, expand your imagination. Tell yourself you can make the glass work for you, not vice-versa.
I ish jin tired...
EJB is offline   Reply With Quote