Input on Lens for D60 or upgrade to D90

Hi,

It strongly depends on the focal length you need. The 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4 will work on your camera, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 HSM lenses will. For longer lenses, yes, it will quickly run into a lot of money. The closest long lenses are the 70-200VR f/2.8 and 300 f/4, both not exactly cheap.

But even if you upgrade to a D90 (which is an excellent camera and an upgrade in many more ways than "just" the AF motor), you might still need very expensive lenses if you want long and large aperture.

So, which lenses were you checking?

A D90 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 without a build in focus motor(that makes the AFD slow and the screwdriver is very fast) or a D60 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8(if you can life with the slow AF) and a Sigma 70-200 2.8.

Which lenses in particular are you looking at?

+1 on the tamron 17-50. also highly recommend the 35/1.8 for low-light.

I agree with Wouter.
The D90 is a big upgrade, but even with 1.4 lenses the only way for low lighting is a full frame camera. I went from a D200 to a D700 and the difference is like day and night. Up to 3200 iso and still printable.
I have been shooting with a D90 and the camera is due to the smaller sensor less light sensitive. For small prints, up to iso 1600 is usable, but I would stay at iso 800 and below.
If you want to shoot without a flash in these circumstances, it will always be an expensive business. D700 is very light sensitive. D90 is better than D60, but you still need a flash in low light situations, even with higher aperture lenses...
Two lenses I can recommend if you want to save a bit of money: Sigma 28-70 2.8 (Needs AF motor) and Sigma 70-200 2.8 (internal focus motor, no VR). Quite afforable and great on both a D90 and D700. Both are full frame lenses, so they stay with you into the future.

Hi Everyone,
Thanks so much for your input! The original lens that I was looking at was the Nikon ( I tend to stick with Nikon lenses only for lack of ever experiencing anything else) Nikon 24-85 mm f/2.8-4.0 D Internal Focus Autofocus Lens which wont work with my camera, so the other option I had was a Wide angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom which will work with my camera but it pricey.
I am by all means still learning so I appreciate you taking the time to help in my next purchases!

Tiffany:

That's an interesting lens selection. Might I ask why you picked that one? 24-85 on DX is useful but there are better ranges to have, and this is a good lens but not among the best. It distorts and it's not the sharpest. It's somewhat expensive and pretty good but not "pro". I'm not sure it's worth changing cameras for, especially since it sounds like you don't already own it. A couple alternatives come to mind:
-There was a 24-85 AF-S but it has been discontinued. You might find it used.
-Since that lens is not cheap, if you can afford it you can afford a 16-85 AF-S VR lens. It's not as fast but it's VR and AF-S and it's a great lens for DX. If you don't want to go the expensive route, almost as good (but with one thing or another that seems to annoy everybody but me - I think this lens is great) is the 18-105 AF-S VR.

Dennis:

You can make a printable photo on a D90 (or D300 or D5000) at 3200 ISO. It happens all the time. It's just more difficult than at lower ISO because you need to get the exposure right on (and if you've left it in auto D-Lighting you need to understand what that's really doing). Yes, you are more likely to get a good shot at 3200 with an FX camera, but I've found that when I shoot at 3200 or higher and don't get a good shot it's not the camera's fault, it's because low light situations are hard and I didn't use the camera as well as I could have.

It beats the D60 in low light for a few reasons:
-The sensor does perform better at high ISO.
-It can AF with non-AFS primes, which are easier to come by and there's a better variety out there.
-Even comparing a D90 and a D60 with AFS lenses, the D90's AF sensor is more sensitive and works better in low light.
-The D90 has more functionality for controlling flashes.

One option to consider would be a D90 and a prime or two, and other lenses rented as needed until you establish that you can make enough money with them to cover the cost. A pro zoom can be rented from a good shop for $30/day. A week ago I shot an event indoors at night using my D90 and a rented 17-55 Nikkor and rented SB-800 ($55 worth of rentals) and I don't think there was anything that would have come out better with a D300.

Wow- Andrew, thanks! I'm still learning about all that photography is, and lenses clearly arent my strong suit! I seem to be struggling the most with trying to find a good, fast lens that will work with my camera. The reason I had picked the 24-85mm lens was that it was a faster lens and I would replace my 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens with that. I'm looking for a faster lens that what I currently have. Any other particular suggestions? I dont mind spending the money if it will give me what I want but I didnt feel like spending 1300 should be necessary for what im looking for but I wasnt completely sure what I was looking for is out there :-)
Tiffany

Digital SLRs depreciate rapidly while lenses hold their value. You are better off holding onto the D60 for longer, until you have improved as a photographer to a point that the D60 is really limiting your results. I would get better lenses first for the better bang for your buck in the longer run. A brand new D90 will quickly lose half of its value in 2, 3 years. In other words, if you are willing to buy used, a DSLR body that is 2, 3 years old, about a generation out of date, will provide a lot of value for your money, but of course most people prefer the latest.

On a DX-format body such as the D60 and D90, a more convenient zoom is those that start from 16, 17 or 18mm on the wide end. 16 to 18mm gives you a very decdent wide converage on DX; that is precisely why Nikon produces so many different choices in that range.

If Nikon lenses are too expensive, don't completely rule out 3rd-party ones. On my Nikon cameras, I use Nikon lenses exclusively, though.

The Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the new VC version of that (VC is Tamrom speak for VR) have built-in motors, as does the Sigma 18-50/2.8. These lenses are not as good as the Nikon 17-55/2.8, of course, but they're much less expensive and they're as good as the Nikon 24-85. Or at least, I think so :)

If you had to chose one over the other when it comes to Sigma or Tamron, which would you chose? It certainly gives me a lot more options when it comes to lens selection.

Ok so I've been looking at the Sigma lenses and they seem to get rather good reviews. I think I have narrowed it down to two lenses. What do you guys think?
Sigma Super Wide Angle AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM Macro Autofocus Lens
Or the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro lens suggested previously by Andrew.
There is only a $70 difference between the two so I was thinking the first one has a wider range so that might be the better investment.