Home Forums Gear Photography Camera and Lens Question

I have a Nikon D50 that I have had a lot of fun with. I have been thinking of getting a Nikon D90 and a new lens.

What advantage will the D90 give me over the D50?

Second, what lens would you suggest. I like to shoot wildlife and scenery. I have a good Wide Angle....I would love to have a 28-500 but I dont' guess that is possible.

I have a Quantery 70-300 lens that I bought back when I had a Nikon N60, my problem with the Quantery is that a lot of my shots are out of focus. I don't notice on the camera LCD but when I get back to my computer it is a useless picture.

Any help or suggestions will be appreciated.

I'm limited on time right now but a couple thoughts:

worry more over the glass than the body. bodies are disposable, lenses are forever.

-good lenses=good pics. and good lenses cost money, usually lots of it. Plan on $1,000-$1,500 per lens for top of the line. There are a few bargains in the $500 range, but not many.

-if you're getting a zoom, try to keep it at or under 3x zoom (24-70, 70-200, 100-300, etc. beyond that (20-500), only the middle half is usable.

-constant aperture rules (24-70 f2.8 is way better than 24-100 f3.5-5.6)

more later, if requested.

Yes, please elaborate when you have a chance. I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on a zoom with a top end in the 300-500 range. I do want great picture quality. Thanks for responding!

please clarify a budget, if you will.

Prefer less than 500...but what would you suggest? Will it take 1000 or 1500 to get a good quality lens. Cheap ones definitely are not getting it done. Are used lenses a viable option?

what is your "good wide angle" lens specifically?

if I'm reading this correctly, you're interesting more in wildlife than landscapes ?

Tokina 11-16

Tokina 11-16

more tomorrow.

I agree with Utah, spend the money on better lenses. The body doesnt matter really. If I were you I would sell off what you have and start fresh. To me a good wide angle lens was the Zeiss Distagon 21mm that I picked up. Very sharp and the colors are amazing. Primes will give you better shots but of course they are limited by the focal length.

You can keep buying cheaper lenses and not be happy with your shots or save up for abit longer and buy a higher end lens and be happy with what you get once and for all.

so the 21 is working out, eh?

After the ZA 85, I have my eye on the 24 f1.2 due out next week...

I think primes are beyond the scope of the current conversation but the idea it correct. it's my intention tomorrow to research a bit and opine on zoom options with his current body.

When I was looking for a longer lens and not spend $5G, I was considering the Sigma 150-500, Tamron 200-500, Nikon 80-400 and the Nikon 300 f/4. I went with the Nikon 300mm and later got a 1.4TC. Reports and tests were that the Nikon had great IQ, and still better than the Tamron and Sigma even with the TC. The Sigma has image stabilization, the Tamron and Nikon 300 do not (which would be a moot point if you use a tripod).

Don't think you will find much worthy for less than 500 bucks. For around 500 there is the Nikon 70-300 and Tamron 70-300. A zoom may suit your uses better than a prime since your other lens is short. I suspect that sharpness may fall off as you approach 300mm with the 70-300s.
You might gleen the reviews here for lens choices:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php
http://www.photozone.de/reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

Matt will probably come up with a good option for you.

more thoughts:

-do spend some time at photozone.de reading lens reviews

-are you wedded to the Nikon platform at this point? you're not financially into your current set-up much at all at this point, but will be after buying 1-2 expensive lenses. Do you like the Nikon bodies well enough to upgrade? do you like their lens selection well enough that you'll still be happy with the platform 7 years from now?

-does the Tokina 11-16 autofocus on the D50 ?

-while you can definitely improve upon the D50 body, you need a medium-term lens plan before you buy a new body. >>>>


>>>> I'd be looking at (say)*:

-the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (at $400-ish, this is a super lens on an APS-C body)
-the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR ($1500-ish)
-the Nikon 300 f4 + TC ($1500-ish)

*substitute Canon or Sony equivalents above if you jump ship on the Nikon.

that kit would cover you nicely and fit in a backpack with the body of your choice. later, you could upgrade bodies and add some specialized primes.

FWIW, with the exception of the Tamron 17-50 (I've owned 4 of them, on 3 different bodies) I've had zero, zip, zilch, nada luck with Sigma / Tamron / Tokina zooms. I've also had exactly one good prime from this trio (a Sigma 300 f2.8 +TC)

Now Zeiss lenses, that's a whole 'nother matter....


Finally, if you make the quantum leap to a Full Frame body, you're going to have to up the game on the lenses considerably, especially the zooms, as the FF sensor will reveal flaws in the glass that were previously invisible to the APS-C sensor.

Love'in the 21 alot.

I agree primes are not the answer for him given his type of shooting. Just saying they are generally better than the zooms. I have one zoom in my bag and love it too, the newer 70-200 F2.8 IS.

All I can say it look carefully and read reviews on the lens before buying...save you alot of money in the long run. Spend extra money on a lens far before a new body.

I like the Nikon platform as much as I have used it I guess. I have had Nikon's for about 10 years now and I know the layout on them. I can't really say that I know how to USE them as I have always used them in the Auto Focus mode and pretty much let the camera do its thing.

The Nikon does autofocus with the Tokina.
I did have a 28-300 Tamron at one point in the last year and it was horrible.....would not focus at the 300 point.

What is your thought on going with older manual focus lenses? I was reading Ken Rockwell's page and he suggests a bunch of different high quality older manual focus lenses.

Would you suggest jumping ship from Nikon? What would the advantage be?

I really do appreciate your help and advice.

---there are a number of awesome older MF lenses out there, mostly under 150mm. The old Minolta Rokkor lenses are readily adaptable and much sought after. Ditto the old Contax N (Ziess), Zeiss ZM, and the odd Leica.
You'll need to get a different focusing screen installed and learn how to use it. These lenses can be great for landscapes and stills but are of limited use for street life shots and nearly useless for wildlife.

--in terms of bodies (again) the caveat is to choose the lens group first: different brands have their pluses and minuses.

Sony (and Pentax) have in-body image stabilization so all lenses are defacto IS, whereas with Canon and Nikon you have to buy each lens in IS separately (adds about $150-200/lens, IIRC)

-Sony also has the largest FF sensor resolution (24MP) and (many believe) the best color rendition --they're popular with landscapers and art reproduction photogs. There is no free lunch though, and that big sensor has a lot of noise at higher ISO (not great for action or low light shots)

-Canon has by far the largest lens selection and especially shines in specialty short lenses (tilts, etc) as well as pretty much owning the market on ultra telephoto primes (400mm up to 1200mm). their upper end cameras are very good in low light / high ISO and dominate sports and long range wildlife markets. my experience with their consumer cameras (I currently own a 40D) is ho-hum and their color rendition leaves something to be desired (people who have to replicate colors exactly, like museum and art gallery catalogers tend to favor Sony or Leica).

-Nikon probably has the best auto focus / focus tracking out there for someone who knows how to use it. Sony used to make all their sensors (though this is changing now) and they have models that are good at high resolution and high ISO (but not both). They've made some inroads into Canon's mid range market share, mostly with wildlife guys but they don't have the lens selection of the Canon line yet - and likely won't.


I find the Sony body the most ergonomic and intuitive followed by Nikon then Canon.

You really should invest a full day and spent it at a good camera shop handling a number of bodies of differing brands and price points to get a feel for what's out there.

I don't have any camera shops anywhere close to me. I would have to travel about 3 hours to get to one.

I am a Real Estate Broker by trade. I have the wide angle Tokina for real estate mainly. I guess I have used my camera more over the last couple of years for that but I want to take more shots of wildlife and landscapes, waterfalls, rock formations and such.

If you were going to pick a body for the above uses, which would you pick? If you don't think the Nikon is a good choice, I can always sell the Tokina on ebay. It is my only "expensive" lens.

I do want a body that is sturdy and feels sturdy. I would not be happy with a camera that did not feel sturdy, if that makes any sense.

Light sensitivity is important to me also. I get pretty upset when I have a nice shot of a deer in the woods and my camera cannot get the shot because my cheaper zooms want more light.

1) a six-hour round trip is well worth the effort & expense to handle a bunch of cameras in person (!)

2) I always have to laugh when someone (inevitably) says they want to shoot "wildlife and landscapes" with the same camera (grin). Below the $4,000 for body-only price range, this is akin to saying "I want a truck with a 12,000# towing capacity that gets 50+ MPG"
As a rule of thumb, a full-frame, high resolution (20-25MP) + wide lens is going to shine for landscapes and an APS-C crop (12-15 MP) + long lens is going to shine for wildlife.

to be sure, some cameras can do a good job at both with the right lens but most are better at one or the other.


I'm assuming you're not looking at top-of-the line Canon 1DIII ($7,000), Nikon D3 & D3X ($4,000 each) ?

Are you in the market of the $2,000-$2,500 Sony A900, Nikonn D700 / D7000 , or Canon 5D II ?

If not, I'd be comparing the APS-C, $800-$1000 Canon 40D / 50D , Nikon D90, or Sony A700.

I think we need to pick one of those three price tiers before we go any further....

I would love to one day be in the top tier but for the forseeable future I am in the lower tier.

there actually is a lower tier than what I listed, but there's really not much point in going there....


the Nikon D90 (12MP), Canon 40D (10MP), Canon 50D (15MP), and Sony A700 (12MP) are all in that $800-$1,200 range new. (I own the 40D and A700 as back-ups and have used the D90)

-the A700 will have in-body image stabilization
-the 40D gets you into Canon's lens lineup
-the Nikon probably has the best focus tracking of the four
-the Sony & Nikon have (pretty much exactly) the same Sony sensor
-the 50D's 15MP is approaching the limit noise-wise, of how many MP can be crammed onto an APS-C sensor.

I'd go to this store of yours and handle the A700, D90, and 40D.

I'd also keep my eye out for a used Canon 5D I -- there are still a few that haven't been snapped up. Ditto used 40Ds and D90s as people move "up" to the 5DII,50D and D7000.