Earlier this week I picked up a D90. It came with th 18-105mm Nikon lense. I have a AF 50mm 1.8 also.

My plan is to build up a good basic selection of lenses before adding on a either a D300s, D700 or whatever new body comes out by then. I decided to hold off a=on the better body first and get good glass.

I have about 1,000.00 max to add lenses right now. My thought was to pick up the Nikon 70-300mm f/4,5-5.6G IF-ED and a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. I enjoy nature photography so a longer lense would be nice.

I would appreciate any and all suggestions.

When you think about a D700: take a Sigma 12-24 instead.

You need to figure out if you're going to go to a D300 or D700. It's two different paths for the better glass.

At this point lets say the D300s

Those two are fine. A really good combo.
The 70-300mm VR is full frame also.

Only alternative I'd consider too is that you can often find 12-24mm Nikon glass used that is immaculate. Actually, if you wanted, you could get the 12-24mm Nikon for about $650 used and the 70-300mm for about $475 used from what I'm seeing.

I had both the Sigma and the Nikon, and actually now have the new Nikon 10-24mm and prefer the Nikon color rendition better. But that's probably just me.

At this time my D90 is my only DSLR. Knowing the importance of quality glass, I chose to sell all my consumer-grade lenses and bought my way into an 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S and an 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S. Not saying these are the right lens selections for everone's needs, but they work really well for me. My next body will be a D700, so I've been manipulating my lens collection accordingly.

If I were to spend the whole budget on just one lense right now...which would be the better choice?

The 10-24mm looks very nice.

JJcam wrote:
If I were to spend the whole budget on just one lense right now...which would be the better choice?

The 10-24mm looks very nice.


Personally, I'd look for something in a longer focal length, but that's just me...

Remember to leave some $$$ for a monopod and comfortable carrying system (backpack, beltpack, etc). These may be especially important if you are into nature photography.

I rented the Nikon 12-24 a few months ago and was VERY happy with the contrast and colors.

I have monopod, tripod, carrying system, extra battery, storage etc...

I like great, clean, clear, exceptional pictures. What I am concerned with is capturing a moment as good as possible.

I will be keeping the 50mm and the 18-105mm VR for now I just want to add the best possible lense for the $$$. I will wait and go up if that makes more sense.

I guess the question changes to...

As a accomplished photographer limited to a D90 body, with all the needed periphials other than lenses...

Which three lenses would you choose, and in which order would you aquire them.

Note: This is assuming you have a 18-105mm VR and a 50mm 1:8

If you shoot animals you go long. If you shoot landscapes you go wide. 10mm is far different than 18mm, as is 300mm compared to 105mm. That's your decision. Personally I'd get the 10-24mm and the 70-300mm VR and be done with it.

well, making the best use of the thousand dolllars will drive you batty. There are a couple of other approaches, and note that your style of shooting, and what you shoot is important.

1) Use the thousand dollars as a down payment on the best Nikon lenses, use the no interest, no payment the biggger stores have - bill Pay, or whatever it is

2) Nikon has released state of the art zoom lenses in the last few years that include reference standards for each. The 14-24, the 24-70, the new 70-200. Note that they also have the PC lenses that are new, and long primes such as 400, 500, 600. They also have the new 105 macroVR, and the AFS TC's, especially the 1.7x

I suggest the best investment, especially if you plan to grow with the gear, is to try and get the latest greatest Pro lenses as described in #2, stay with Nikon, and learn how to use Photoshop.

If by "enjoying nature" you mean you are planning to photo wildlife, you will need a long lens. Your best choices at this point in time are (1) Nikon 80-400mm VR (2) Nikon 300mm f4 + TC-14E. Look for used, on eBay. After the first of the year is the best time to get some deals on eBay, usually. One other thing. You are going to need a tripod and head. A real one. Look for quality ballhead such as AcraTech, Markins, RRS, Kirk. Long lenses need solid support. At least, if you want sharp rather than blurry photos. You must budget for that. I'd completely skip the idea of buying another camera for the next two years and concentrate on buying the more important pieces of your system. The 70-300mm VR is a good lens, but it's not long enough for most wildlife. If you're talking about shooting landscapes with 70-300mm VR, that will work. Spend $500 on the lens, $500 on tripod & ballhead.


Kent in SD

70-300 is a great lens, but short for wildlife. You'll be happy with it for a while and then get tired of it always being to short, so you through a converter on it. Problem is it's already slow at 300 and way to slow with a converter.

To do it all over again I probably would have forgone the 70-300 length and got either the 300 f/4 af-s and a converter or the 80-400 vr, which are the next items on my purchase list.

Although it is my favorite lens to shoot nature with at the moment, but I curse everytime I go shooting because I find it always to short.

Two23 wrote:
If by "enjoying nature" you mean you are planning to photo wildlife, you will need a long lens. Your best choices at this point in time are (1) Nikon 80-400mm VR (2) Nikon 300mm f4 + TC-14E. Look for used, on eBay. After the first of the year is the best time to get some deals on eBay, usually. One other thing. You are going to need a tripod and head. A real one. Look for quality ballhead such as AcraTech, Markins, RRS, Kirk. Long lenses need solid support. At least, if you want sharp rather than blurry photos. You must budget for that. I'd completely skip the idea of buying another camera for the next two years and concentrate on buying the more important pieces of your system. The 70-300mm VR is a good lens, but it's not long enough for most wildlife. If you're talking about shooting landscapes with 70-300mm VR, that will work. Spend $500 on the lens, $500 on tripod & ballhead.


Kent in SD

I am looking at more towards wildlife than landscape. I think the shorter lens will have to wait for the moment.

I will look into the better quality tripod. Looking at some of the high quality sets I have seen here and other places I am starting to understand the importance of a tripod setup that will hold together and work as needed at the right time.

It sounds like the 70-300 VR is a nice lens to have it is not quite enough for the true wildlife photos. I am very good at getting close to a variety of animals in the wild but realize that I still need a powerful lense to get a good picture.

I stopped at a local camera shop today and explained my desires to someone I have talked to there on multiple occasions. He suggested the Sigma 150-500 as something that would get me started doing what I was describing. They sell it for about 1,000.00 but I see it many places for under 900.00.

It seems ok but I notice it is not as appreciated as a quality Nikkor 2.8 pro lens.
Will this be a lens that I will be happy with the results of and can grow with or will it be just another good idea that does not meet expectations?

Thanks again for all the input.

Buy off Amazon. You have 30 day return privilege if you are unhappy with it.