Lauzobe, check this out:
http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/pd/productID.213541800?resid=TUUpggoBAlcAACjUc50AAAAp&rests=1296378242445

Notice it is the BR-2A not the old style BR-2. That will get you started and save oodles of money. It of course depends on your front filter being 52mm.

Like to 2nd solembum's suggestions and add a couple. Two posts ago I was excitedly talking about my classic 200mm micro. I recently got PK extension tubes from ebay. The filter diopter magnifiers also a great idea. The point I was trying to make is this, if you chose Nikon glass to start but like another brand of lens of course go for it and don't look back. I chose Nikon for the glass, can always find ways around a problem until I am pocketed enough for the next lens of my choosing. You don't have to have a macro lens to take macro shots. Close up lenses, lens reversal adapters, diopter filter magnifiers, extension tubes, bellows, all have advantages and provide a complete range of costs for one curious about close ups. The 200mm was my joy lens that I got to do medical photography and now is a favorite in my kit because of it's quality. If you have access to a library (he said what?) go and look up macro photography and read about the myriad ways to get closer. To see first hand how the inverse square law works, just get close up...

Ok, I am going to differ from the previous posts a bit.

It seems you have the 70-300 VR. Get a +2 or +3 diopter for it. FOr cheap but good, I'll recommend Marumi DHG macro +3 diopters. That, on the 70-300VR will give you a magnification range of 1/5x to 1.2x, but with a fixed working distance of 30 cm.

Of course, it is not as easy to use as a dedicated macro lens, but offers quite good quality. Using this setup, you will understand the demands as well as joys of macro photography, as will using the 18-105 VR do for the landscape end.

Using these for some time will give you excellent images, as well as teach you more about what genres of photography you enjoy, and also what you need from your equipment... so you can make a more informed descision when you make a larger purchase.

If you want some example from the 70-300VR +3 achromat setup, check out recent pictures at my flickr : http://www.flickr.com/photos/subhrashis

Still have the 400mm f/6.9 Tamron I was given at age 12(Exacta VXiiA). Loved it then and now. So as my high school history teacher used to say at the end of EVERY class. "...Now go out there and show them how smart you are." Just make the pictures that please you and forget people with opinions and "experience."

Budget restrictions being what they are, I believe that I will go for the Tamron 90 f2.8 Di Sp macro and on the wide angle will probably go for the Tokina 11-16.

If I discover hidden coins under my bed, I will of course go for Nikkor 105 VR and 10-24 DX.

Hopefully I'll have both lens by year's end.

Thanks to all,

Your valuable knowledge, expertise and experience is highly appreciated.

Are you attracted to nature photography in any form? If so, get the 200mm Micro Nikkor. It allows for photographing a rattlesnake since you are 2 feet away at lifesize! More to the point, I have enjoyed macro photography one way or the other for 40 years. I've always been attracted to shots of nature more than shots of people. I go in search of birds to shoot and even though I work at a college, the birds I shoot have feathers. When I started, I got a BR-2 reversal ring, turned my 43-86mm around backwards and voila, had an immediate macro setup that would focus with a pull of the zoom barrel. Most recently I got a DSLR, 1 year ago, my very first. The 200mm micro that I have was used to win the very first photo contest I ever entered and I could not be more thrilled that Nikon allowed me to keep my old lenses and use them on this fantastic new technology. I swear by the 200mm because I can keep distance from my subjects and get 1/2 life size reproduction. The 200mm micro by Nikon today will, I believe, reproduce at 1:1 at that distance now. My 2 cents. One last important note: The BR-2 should not be used on modern DSLRs as it will damage the camera. If I am wrong someone please call me on this.

Another thing to consider: I enjoy backyard macro photography but with winter in full swing I don't get out much as I live in a pretty cold climate. So if you're thinking of buying one lens now and another in six months, buy the UWA now and the macro this summer. When you're buying lenses, for what it's worth, I own the 105mm 2.8, which I've really enjoyed. I'm guessing those who have it will vouch for spending the extra $$. I also recently rented the 12-24 f4 for a 2+ week trip and found it to be a blast. The difference between the short end of your 18-105 is significant. And while it was nice to shoot landscapes, where I really liked it is shooting things from a very short distance to get the altered perspective.

lauzobe that is a conundrum I faced as well. So I sold one of my sets of golf clubs and a couple of drivers and film cameras and got the Tokina 12-24 and a 60mm AFD macro.

I probably learned the most from my Macros to be honest. Depth of field, angles, basic lighting, etc since small changes make big differences.

First macro - I'd go with a 60mm which is a multi-purpose lens, then pick up a wide in the 10-24 range. Tokina's lenses are great if you don't want to spend the $ for Nikon.

True, tubes are more "technical", and require you to know more about what you are doing, but are a very inexpensive, so I only suggest it if the op decides to go wide, and would like to try out a macro option.

I agree, if you can afford it, by all means get Nikon lenses.

Hi,

I would, with some caution, recommend on the DX side, the Nikon 10-24mm. I have the lens and use it for that range. It's a sharp, journeyman lens, that should satisfy most users.

Over the years, I've had the opportunity to try several brands of lenses on Nikon cameras, and frankly, I've regretted every purchase that wasn't a Nikon... It could easily be different now. I just don't have the stomach to try.

Extension tubes are fine, but require a flat aspect on the lens you're using them with. Something that can be dicey. I've had 'automatic' and 'non-automatic' tubes - the automatic are much, much more friendly to use. ;-)

You'll find that a macro lens will be miles ahead of tubes, and the tubes or the bellows will work in conjunction with the tubes or bellows for 'super micro' when you have both. The bellows I have has a shutter release to allow for shopping down the lens prior to taking the picture.

Look for what you'd get the most enjoyment in using and my best,

Mike

I went micro first, and then ultra wide, and I found a couple of things.

First I bought the 105mm micro. At the time I owned it and the 18-200mm. It was a good combo, but I soon found myself using the 105mm for anything that 'mattered' because it was a more useful lens - sharper, faster. And I found myself using the 18-200mm at either 18 or 200mm.

Then I got the Tokina 11-16mm and I totally agree with other posters in that shooting 11-16mm is totally different than shooting 18mm - beyond the numbers - the ultra wide is far more, for lack of a better word, trippy. It's also a great quality lens.

So now to your question. While I'm not a 'pro level' macro shooter, nor am I a 'pro level' landscape and wide angle shooter, I've gone a ways down both roads.

For wide angle stuff, if you have the lens and a good tripod and the oomph to get out shooting, you're pretty much set. You could get a pano rail for your tripod, filters, and that's about it (I think).

For macro, things can potentially get a lot more expensive. Macro rails for your tripod, a tripod that can sit at ground level, lighting rigs that look like weird alien machines, software for focus stacking, studio setups... There's a lot of gear growth in macro. Sure, you don't need all of it, but the potential is there.

I've had a blast with macro. It is a great way to find color if your neck of the woods doesn't have much (bugs, fungus, all sorts of crazy stuff when you're at 1:1). Wide angle in a city is proving to be equally fun in a different way for me, as making buildings do weird things to create atmosphere is very cool.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

I think the OP really means *extreme* micro or *extreme* wide, something that really rocks micro or wide, that will really open a new way of *seeing* either view to a new way of looking at something visually.

Mikes' right, I'm looking at both the extremes, and know that I will want to (and will eventualy) incorporate them both in my photography skills.

On the wide end I'm glad to ear the Tikona 11-16, cause I was looking into that one as a cheaper alternative to the Nikkor 10-24.

As for the Micro, I had heard about extension tubes, but thought they might be gimmicky. Any suggestions on brand to use with my 35mm f1.8 if it works at all.

All great post guys.

Thanks,

Benoît

As mike says both ultra wide and 1:1 macro can be fun. but either one or both may not be your cup of tea. I have a friend who tried macro and hates it. his lovely lens gathers dust. I have a 12-24 and I hardly use it but I LOVE macro. I say try the cheapest route first and that's macro with a close up filter like the 250D or the raynox which I did a review recently. Or extension tubes. Dont try the silly cheap +1+2+3 diopter close up filters they add too much CA and blurry edges.

It's hard to compare the two, they obviously serve different functions and purposes, and create different types of images. For myself, I went "ultra-wide" (I have the slow 10-20 and the 11-16) and I still don't have a dedicated macro lens (this is probably my next move). Still, I can get 1:1 or higher using the 50/1.8 with extension tubes and/or closeup lenses (like the 250D).

If I had to make a suggestion, that's what I'd say- there no real cheap ultrawide lenses, but the 50/1.8 and extension tubes (if you look for ones without electronic contacts which you don't really need), along with a 250D should run you under $200. You'll still want a set of rails, and a good tripod, but you'll really want that with any macro lens you get.

Hi,

I think the OP really means *extreme* micro or *extreme* wide, something that really rocks micro or wide, that will really open a new way of *seeing* either view to a new way of looking at something visually.

For me, both were eye openers. I was working for the Army and had the opportunity to see at about the same time and had a job that allowed me to use both without having to pay out of my pocket to use both for a while. I would *buy* wide, and save for *micro*.

I wouldn't get *wild* wide (at first ;-)), but good, ordinary and useful wide, in DX, 12-24/ 14-24 in FX - perhaps. In Micro, 105 (either DX or FX and get a sync chord or two and an extra flash).

Plan on spending a great deal of time with both. They are great fun.

My best.

Mike

If you are on a budget then look at Tamron's macro lenses. The 60mm has a nice f/2.0 aperture and the 90mm is also really good.

Good idea, but he doesn't have anything macro to shoot with yet. A combination of our advice is perhaps the way to go using the 18-105 and a close-up filter to see how he goes for a month.

Set yourself a goal to shoot 5 to 10 good pictures a day.

Shoot 20-40 and keep only 5 that you like, dump the rest, do not keep them.

Shoot anything and everthing. Expand your point of view, interest and composition.

At the end of one month you would have taken 600 to 1200 pictures and after reviewing them would have kept 150.

By then will know wether you like marco or wide by reviewing the pictures that you have kept.

good luck

spraynpray said:
I need both . . .

Yes, every photographer SHOULD have both.

spraynpray said:
. . . I use a £12 +3 diopter close-up filter on my 18-105 and get acceptable results for now.

That's totally another good way to go--slap a set of diopters (much cheaper than a lens) on your 18-105mm to enable a much closer minimum-focus distance on your standard lens (which enables more magnification). You won't get as close as 1:1, but it'll still give you enough magnification to give you macro-ish images

I need both and will get the Tokina 11-16 before I get the macro as I use a £12 +3 diopter close-up filter on my 18-105 and get acceptable results for now. As said before, the 11-16 is WAY wider than the 18 end of your lens.

studio460 said:
You already have a wide-angle (the '18' part of your 18-105mm). Since you don't already have a macro, get a Micro-Nikkor. I would suggest the non-VR, AF-S 60mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor ($480) for its fast f/2.8 aperture. Or, if you want a super-wide, get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX lens for about $600. Sharp and super-wide. It's the only non-Nikon lens I own!

+1 18 is wide enough for most shots, so I think you would only gain slightly by something wider. IMO there is always macro stuff to shoot everywhere. It is going to be my next lens. I like being able to go in my backyard and shoot macro where unless you live somewhere you think you can shoot landscapes all the time then it seems like macros is a better choice.

duh, of course, i forgot about the zoom

You already have a wide-angle (the '18' part of your 18-105mm). Since you don't already have a macro, get a Micro-Nikkor. I would suggest the non-VR, AF-S 60mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor ($480) for its fast f/2.8 aperture. Or, if you want a super-wide, get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX lens for about $600. Sharp and super-wide. It's the only non-Nikon lens I own!

Macro lenses are fun. You can also use the 60mm Micro as a relatively fast, short-telephoto for portraits. But ultra-wides are way fun too. Maybe funner. FWIW, I rarely take out my 60mm Micro, but I shoot with my Tokina 11-16mm every chance I get (and yes, 11-16mm looks markedly wider than 18mm).

lauzobe said:Some will reply that it depends what style of photography I want to do.

That pretty much sums it up. 35 is not wide at all on DX, so you make a good point about wide vs macro.

I would argue almost pointlessly, since you don't know yourself, that if more than 20% of your photos are landscapes, that you need a wide lens.

If however, you don't really feel the need to take landscape pics and are more interested in animals, flowers and people, then a macro will be more useful.

If possible I would rent cheap versions of both for as long as possible before making a decision.