where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
adamz said:
I'm very happy with my 105vr, had the same dilemma as willis some time ago and decided to go for the longer one, and I don't regret that decision, 105vr is a great lens with very fast and accurate AF. My only con is the fact it's getting darker when You focus closer, but that's just the way it's created.
Isn't this true for every Macro lens anyway?
Its true for most modern macro designs, that have internal focusing, actually all IF lenses suffer from that to some degree.
I got the 85mm F3.5G DX Micro, its got decent focusing distance, sharp, and best of all, it is really light weight. I was thinking for a long time that I wouldn't buy any more DX lenses, but I figured I wont be moving to FX for at least a few years so, I figured I'd get the longer focal length for less cost.
yup, that's the IF that's causing this, but at least the size is constant. anyway, 105vr is a great piece of glass.
Subject is visibly darker on large closeups no matter what lens you are using because the lens is much further from the sensor and you loose the light with the square of a distance.
Willis said:
The only real drawback is that I now own the 70-200. I haven't done a side by side comparison yet, but my guess is that its just as sharp. That makes the 105 strictly for macro work.Not that its a bad thing, but I'm not convinced I do enough Macro to make it justify the cost. I don't think I'll sell it though. Just because I'm not doing much macro now doesn't mean I won't be soon. (It's to cold for the critters right now anyway).
I actually jsut got in my Canon 500D closeup lens for using on the 70-200. I am just dabbling in macro right now and havn't been able to get to any insects, but below are two pics I took using the 70-200, 1.7x tele, and the Canon 500D. To my eyes they are very acceptable.
Willis said:
I've been considering picking up a macro lens. Wanted to know you guys thoughts on Nikon's 60mm and 105mm lenses, and any third party solutions.I'm leaning toward the 105, but I've never really done any Macro work.
60mm is short for a macro, unless you are photographing something that is dead.
For portraits the AF-S 60mm is really nice and as a general use lens it rules because the AF is blazing fast.
The 105mm is really good (focal-length wise) for living insects.
I wound up with the Sigma 150mm macro and I am VERY happy with it. Gives me extra distance and the images are pretty sharp.
Godless said:
60mm is short for a macro, unless you are photographing something that is dead.
For portraits the AF-S 60mm is really nice and as a general use lens it rules because the AF is blazing fast.
Does this still apply for DX lenses (I use a 7000, so at 1.55x it is equivalent to 93mm on an FX) Would this be suitable for good macro? I'm tempted as it is a much more reasonable price
Even on DX the 60 is a bit short for live critters that won't sit still. The 105 gives you a bit more working distance, which also alows more flexibility with lighting. I love my 105.
Okay the terminator, NikoDoby has closed my other thread on macros and telephotos. So asking it here again. I have D7k + 35mm (which covers most of my shooting). I have 85mm f3.5 for macro and it gives stunning pictures for my needs. I'm looking for a telephoto lens from 70 or 80mm till 200 or 300mm with f2.8
Should I keep my 85mm for macro or buy something that covers telephoto and macro? I have $300-400 for a lens to buy. Thinking that selling 85mm f3.5 would give me some more room to buy a better lens (looking at 80-200 f2.8). Please advise on which route to take. Thanks.
Nothing covers "macro" in a zoom except the very hard to find, 70-180mm which is $1k+ used.
For Nikon lenses, $400 not enough for much. I would just keep saving and add a 70-300vr when you have the money.
swame_sp said:
.....I have 85mm f3.5 for macro and it gives stunning pictures ......
......Should I keep my 85mm
If you have a lens that is producing stunning pictures, dont sell it.
Unlike Nikon cameras, Nikkor lenses do not go out of date and fall in value
they tend to be a very sound investment
For stunning macro photography, stick to primes
for your budget,
look for a refurbished or used 70-300VR.
keep the 85mm micro, it is of a length that is easy to use.
sometimes, folks are tempted to look for one lens that does it all, the problem is that the lens will not do anything very well.
keep it and get the zoom.
There are 3rd party zoom lenses that they say can also be macro, but I don't think they are true macro lenses (and I haven't heard anyone raving about their macro performance). From what I have heard though the Nikon 85 is a great lens...I actually had it in my hand at one point before I returned it and got the 105 F2.8.
For your budget though the grass isn't really greener on the other side...I would stick with what you have and save for a telephoto lens if you want one. I wouldn't try to mix the thought of both together. I also think you will be far happier with a dedicated macro then trying to use something else that isn't one as one.
From what I have heard of the 70-300 VR I will second the thought of getting that.
@TTJ, @casperweb, thanks for the input, by 70-300vr you guys mean the f4.5-5.6 lens?
@sevencrossing, @tcole, thank you for the prompt response. I see your point of lenses holding the value.
I will have to capture some of the indoor events, with less lighting and people moving around fast. So I thought f2.8 is very important for it.
Won't f4.5 make the photos blurry without tripod? Any suggestions here please.
The newest version of the 80-200 also costs $1000+...which seems out of your budget. It would depend on the event though, or what specifically you feel like you are trying to get out the lenses.
Seems like you are maybe not sure. A tripod won't help in low light with moving subjects...they will blur because they are moving and you will have slow shutter speeds.
While the Af is super slow I use 80-200mm f2.8d's and they are amazing lenses. You can get them for around $400-$600 off eBay easily. Definately not a macro though...
kyoshinikon said:
While the Af is super slow I use 80-200mm f2.8d's and they are amazing lenses. You can get them for around $400-$600 off eBay easily. Definately not a macro though...
My new version 80-200mm f/2.8D ED telephoto is really fast in the AF dept. On the D7K, D700 and D3s. I deffinatly wouldn't catagorize the new version 80-200's AF as being "super slow". The 80-200 is one of my faves and a great bargain for the performance.
Are you reffering to one of the older versions or maybe the AF-s version?
swame_sp said:
@TTJ, @casperweb, thanks for the input, by 70-300vr you guys mean the f4.5-5.6 lens?
Yes the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor.
I will have to capture some of the indoor events, with less lighting and people moving around fast. So I thought f2.8 is very important for it.
Won't f4.5 make the photos blurry without tripod? Any suggestions here please.
You are starting to jump around on us here! ;) There is no magic bullet lens that does everything.
In your price range that you stated, you are limited and will have probably want another lens. As long as you set your camera to auto ISO and have vr, you can shoot the 70-300 with fairly good results down to 1/60th-1/30th handheld most of the time. Jack the ISO up for sure. For indoors, you probably are looking at a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 to get more "good" shots. If you want a 70-200 2.8 you might try a Tamron - they go for $700-$799 new. Most older Nikon 80-200 (Non-pull zooms) go for $800 - $1300. Tokina has some really good 80-200's as well if you can find them. I would go for the "crackle" finish in that brand for those.
There's an older AF 28-105/f3.5-4.5D that allows for 1:2 macro.
I recently jumped on the Tokina 100mm/f2.8 macro lens. It doesn't have VR like the Nikkor variant, but it's half the price and just as sharp. Since I also have a 70-200/f2.8 VR, I didn't have the motivation to pay twice as much for VR and possibly better coatings. Not like I'm going to be picking up flare on that lens with the front element so far recessed on top of the long hood it has. Don't regret not getting the Nikkor 105/f2.8 VR for an instant.
swame_sp said:
@TTJ, @casperweb, thanks for the input, by 70-300vr you guys mean the f4.5-5.6 lens?
@sevencrossing, @tcole, thank you for the prompt response. I see your point of lenses holding the value.I will have to capture some of the indoor events, with less lighting and people moving around fast.
.
.
you need to let us know about the event you will be covering,
how far you will be form your subjects,
will you be allowed to use flash,
how high is the ceiling
if no flash, can you use a tripod or monopod.
lots of questions, but the answers usually dictate what equipment you carry to a shoot.
as to the 70-300 being blurry, you have a camera that will allow you to crank up the ISO to keep your shutter speed up, within reason of course.
as TTJ said, there is no magic bullet lens, that is why most of us end up with a collection.
El_Pickerel said:
There's an older AF 28-105/f3.5-4.5D that allows for 1:2 macro.I recently jumped on the Tokina 100mm/f2.8 macro lens. It doesn't have VR like the Nikkor variant,
.
I have this lens also, use it for Macro only,tried out the auto focus a few times when I wanted to capture something but did not want to change lenses.
I do not use VR for macro, so it is something that is not missed.
great lens, easy to manual focus, nice damping, I have to get a pair of knee protectors as I always return with dirty or muddy knees.
yeah yeah I know it is off topic, but could not resist.
Ah yes! Can't forget how nice the Tokina lenses with the "autofocus clutch" are for manual focus. Nice big focus rings and the push/pull works great. Especially on the 100mm macro where you don't have a zoom ring taking up territory. Only bother there is if you do have the lens hood on reversed, unless the lens is already focused in pretty close the focus ring is completely hidden behind the hood! Though you don't really need the hood with the front element so far hidden in the lens body.
It got off topic...the poster that came back into this thread already had a macro lens and was looking at a telephoto lens. Should probably got look at some of the other threads on that subject.
On macro thoughts though I thought about the Tamron 90 F2.8, but once I again I fell to the I can spend $XXX and get the Nikon 105...so I did.
Thanks for all the members. Apologies for late reply. Let me answer to the questions.
Coming to the earlier discussion, I'm trying to stick with the advise to retain 85mm f3.5 for macro. Since there is no do-it-all lens for macro and telephoto, I thought of asking about used versions of 70-300 f4.5 (around $380) and 80-200 f2.8(around $700 for 2 ring version). Should I post this question on another thread or good to continue here?
About the events that I would capture, will be a get-together, happening once in a while across US with about 500-1000 people, musical performance...etc
Regarding the ceiling, mostly it could be in a hall and sometimes in open ground.
Flash is allowed but I try not to use it to get the natural color at the event. I have tried with ISO around 2000 and results were good. Did not try increasing it more.
If I have missed any other question I will answer in a separate post. Thanks all.
You must log in to post.
