my "next" lens! (need advice!)

[yayitsrobby]

I'm an amateur photographer trying to gear up to bring my shots to a new level and need some advice in what the next lenses should be.

I shoot a Nikon D90 with a 18-105mm VR kit and a 35mm f/1.8 prime. The 35 is my usual walk around lens and couldn't ask for a better "walkaround" lens. I was looking to getting a couple new lenses soon and have two in mind. What do you guys think about the Tokina 11-16mm ultra wide and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro as the next two lenses?

Thanks guys!

[Photo-John]

The right lens depends on your subject. So what kinds of things are you shooting? And in what way are your current lenses letting your down?

The Tokina 11-16mm lens is a popular one, and for good reason. I own the older, Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and it's great. So a little wider and another stop of light and depth-of-field control has to be better, right? Here are our member reviews for that lens:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens User Reviews >>

If super-wide is important to you, then I also recommend looking at the new Sigma 8-16mm lens. It doesn't have a fixed aperture but it's my favorite super-wide lens ever. Here's my review:

Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Zoom Lens Pro Review >>

As for other lens recommendations, tell us more about your photography and we'll be better able to help

[yayitsrobby]

the 35 is great for just walking around and as an all around lens but with the crop body D90, it's hard to get nice landscapes in unless i shoot a panoramic (which i'm not very good at). my friend has the 11-16 and i hear from a lot of reviews that its one of the best for nikons. It seems to be cheaper than most too.

and with the macro lens, i tried out my friends 100mm 2.8 macro for canon and i loved it. i really like macro shots but the 35 doesn't give me the sharpness i want. overall tho, i'll prob still have the 35 as the walk around most of the time.

the one thing i'm a little iffy about for the sigma lens is that you can't use filters.

for my kind of photography, i really enjoy nature shots. I'm trying to get into landscape and portraits as well.

[Photo-John]

I understand your concern about no filters with the Sigma. Personally, I found that the lens was worth trading a faster, fixed aperture and filters. But that's a personal decision.

Have you considered replacing your 18-105mm kit lens with the Nikkor 18-200mm VR II? It's not really a macro lens but I believe the minimum focus distance is pretty good. I have the Canon 18-200mm and it's my most used lens. It's not the best at anything. But it's compact and very good at lots of stuff, which is why I use it so much.

[yayitsrobby]

i was looking at the 18-200 before but i feel like the 18-200 sacrifices a lot of image quality. I rarely use my 18-105 also. I only use it when i need to zoom or if i need a wider angle. i think i'm pretty set on getting the tokina but i'm more iffy about the macro. I'm still wondering if its worth it. it does add versatility to my shots tho. from my experiences with my friends 100mm macro for canon, it shoots awesome portraits as well as macros and from i'm reading i hear the nikon 105 macro is even slightly better in terms of bokeh and quality. what do you think?

[n8]

I think if you can afford it then have at it. I have the 60mm micro (macro). I do kind of wish I had the 105, as I have to get real up close and personal with the 60, but the IQ is excellent, and also makes for a great portrait lens. Detail is ridiculous even when zoomed in.

[Eleanor Maw]

The Nikon 105 VR Macro is a very useful lens and cost no more than a mid range zoom, here in the UK you can pick them up for £600 new, a good investment for both Nikon FX & DX bodies.

[Franglais]

What size prints are you making? On 8x10 inch/A4 I can just about see a difference between my 18-200 and my other lenses, if I look really closely for a while.

Macro lenses are usually the best image quality that you can get. Of course you have to use the camera on a heavy tripod to make sure you get all that definition.

[Eleanor Maw]

I have thought of buying a Nikon 18-200 VR2, very good lens to stick on the front of my D90 for day outings, but for closeup work, it's the Nikon 105 VR Macro or Nikon 24-70 I use.

[wedding photographer]

35mm or the 50mm PRIME!

[srblough]

This thread got me curious about just how sharp and close the 18-200 VR can do. These two shots are uncropped, closest focus (0.5m), longest focal length (200mm), wide open (f5.6), VR on, using a tripod, on the D90. The rose is ISO200, 1/2500; the other one ISO800, also 1/2500.
Of course, would be more instructive if I had the 105 to compare! Maybe Santa will be good ...

[Eric D]

105mm 2.8 nikkor macro lens is the way to go. It's one of the beat lenses on the market. I love mine and would recommend it.

[Anbesol]

Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8. Or, 180mm f/2.8

*edit - I'd put my vote on the 105mm macro as well. Telephoto is more useful and enjoyable I think, super wides are more of a novelty thing. You throw it on the camera, take a few shots, and then you've had your fill of wide angle for the night. At least those are my sentiments.

Another good option worth considering: the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro. One stop faster for twice as much light, a more general purpose focal range. Still a 1:1 magnification.