Camera Rookie with D90 lens question

[Wonka]

I'm considering the purchase of a Nikon D90 body and it has been suggested that I also purchase an 18-200 lens for all-around use. I wonder if the D90 kit with the 18-105 will be enough (in consideration of cost savings and my non-professional needs). Primary photography will be automobiles, nature and sporting events (baseball, football).

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

[deletedelete]

Hey Will. Cant answer your question about the lens but a d90 is great. My d3000 only a few months old is up for sale in case your interested. A d90 seems a bit much for a hobby camera though. I wish I had that dough.

[Wonka]

Originally Posted by Prowess Symphony

Hey Will. Cant answer your question about the lens but a d90 is great. My d3000 only a few months old is up for sale in case your interested. A d90 seems a bit much for a hobby camera though. I wish I had that dough.

Thank you for the offer but I'm down to the D90 and a D5000. If I go with the D5000, I'll go for the body plus a 18-200 because the kit lens isn't a great item. The battle on the D90 side would be getting the D90 kit with the 18-105 and pairing it with a 70-300 or pairing the D90 body with a 18-200. Balancing functionality and cost are keys.

As for dough, it due to 14 years of uninterrupted work.

[Sylon]

What brand are the lenses? That makes a little bit of difference.

[Wonka]

Originally Posted by Sylon

What brand are the lenses? That makes a little bit of difference.

Nikkor

The fine specs are up for suggestion. The Nikon 18-200mm VR looks like a good choice.

Update...

I bit the bullet and went with the D90 with the Nikkor 18-200m VR.

[TL]

i have the D90 with 18-200 VR lens and love it

I also have the the Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 AF-S ( for portraits)
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (ultra wide lens)

[Sylon]

The Nikkor 18-200mm is a nice general use lens, nice grab on that. I wish I had that little extra zoom at Le Mans this past weekend. The best I have for zoom is my 18-135mm (D80 kit lens) for my D200.

[jc_lbc]

+1, you made a good choice. It's tempting to go for the extra reach of the 70-300 but it simply doesn't make great looking images toward the longer end of its zoom.

[Wonka]

Originally Posted by jc_lbc

+1, you made a good choice. It's tempting to go for the extra reach of the 70-300 but it simply doesn't make great looking images toward the longer end of its zoom.

That's solid advice. I'll be taking some action shots for college football in a few months and I'm considering a lens that will give me greater reach (over the 18-200) while maintaining quality. However, I'm balancing cost versus the time of use since it'll be for only 4-5 games per year. Maybe I can lean on photo edit software to fill the gap.

[jc_lbc]

The 70-300 would probably work well enough in bright sunlight so you can get it stopped down to f11 or so (and you probably would want to pull back from the 300mm max some to keep the sharpness up) but for shooting under the lights I suspect it will be a taller order.

[Wonka]

Yesterday, I was at the Twins v Phils game and I took a few pics.