| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/26/2010 11:17:25 PM · #1 |
I'm tempted to order a lens before the Bing Cashback program ends. Discounts on lenses seem so scarce.
I've been considering a Macro lens for a while. I love shooting closeups, especially with very thin DOF. I haven't shot many bugs--though I would like to try sometime.
So far my kit is mainly the 18-200 VR, which I find useful for everything, the Sigma 10-20 wide, the Nikon 10.5 fisheye, and the Nikon 50mm 1.8. And I have a set of three extension tubes--that's what I use currently for macros--with the 18-200 and the 50mm. The results are pretty good, and it's made it "harder" for me to cost justify a macro.
But while I've been eyeballing macros, I've had my eye also on some faster lenses for theatre and portrait work.
The Nikon 85 1.8 is very tempting to me because it's small, and reasonably priced. So my first question is: do you think the Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR lens would be better for macros than this lens + my tubes? Except for not having VR, the 85 f/1.8 sure would be a boon for the extra stops...though it's missing VR, so there's a catch for indoor work. Which would be a better portrait lens?
I've also consider the 105mm Nikon of course--though it's a heck of a lot more expensive. And the Sigma 150mm, which would let me shoot macros and bugs, but is probably useless for portraits or theatre shooting. (And has no VR to boot).
But a zoom is also tempting for indoor/portrait work; I hate stopping to change lenses. What would you recommend if not?
Anyway, I've got the bug to buy...but I can't afford "all the lenses I want", and it's so hard to pick one! Help me decide!
|
|
|
|
07/27/2010 12:23:20 AM · #2 |
| When I look at your lens line up the thing that really surprises me is that you don't have a 70-200F2.8VR lens. That with your tubes would cover much of what you want to do. Long for Theater work with VR and fast(F2.8) Zoom and I love using my 70-200 for Portraits.. While I also use the 85F1.2 for portraits it is pretty useless with tubes. That would be my recommendation. |
|
|
|
07/27/2010 12:33:58 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by MattO:
When I look at your lens line up the thing that really surprises me is that you don't have a 70-200F2.8VR lens. That with your tubes would cover much of what you want to do. Long for Theater work with VR and fast(F2.8) Zoom and I love using my 70-200 for Portraits.. While I also use the 85F1.2 for portraits it is pretty useless with tubes. That would be my recommendation. |
Yes, except for it's size (big) and price (around $2400), I've been thinking about that one too! I wonder how well it would work with tubes?
|
|
|
|
07/27/2010 12:36:42 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by MattO:
When I look at your lens line up the thing that really surprises me is that you don't have a 70-200F2.8VR lens. That with your tubes would cover much of what you want to do. Long for Theater work with VR and fast(F2.8) Zoom and I love using my 70-200 for Portraits.. While I also use the 85F1.2 for portraits it is pretty useless with tubes. That would be my recommendation. |
Yes, except for it's size (big) and price (around $2400), I've been thinking about that one too! I wonder how well it would work with tubes? |
Very good with tubes. At least the Canon version is. When I don't want to carry either of my True Macro lens with me I pack a 25MM tube with my 70-200 lens. And maybe we have different views on size but to me the 70-200 is a normal size lens. Of course I also handhold a 300MM F2.8 lens..... |
|
|
|
07/27/2010 01:28:21 AM · #5 |
Well, I've got the Sigma 150 and the Nikon 85 1.8...
I really have liked the Sigma so far. It occasionally will do some searching for focus, but diligent use of the focus limiter helps this a lot and the issue seems to be present with most macro lenses, at least to some degree. I wouldn't say it's useless for portraiture, though. It does a nice job on backgrounds between the focal length and the aperture, but that length can also make it not as versatile. I'm not familiar with the demands of theater work, so cannot comment there.
I really like my 85 1.8, as well, and I've shot several entries using it an extension tubes.
  
But really... I'm not sure I'd put them in the same category together. They're sorta opposite to me... the sigma is a macro lens you can do other stuff with and the nikon is a portrait lens you can do other stuff with...
|
|
|
|
07/27/2010 04:30:46 AM · #6 |
If you don't want to use tubes, I highly recommend a high quality close-up filter. I use the Canon 500D close up filter on my 70-200 with very pleasing results. Maybe not as good as a dedicated macro lens, but *very* portable. Plus you can keep autofocus (v useful for handheld macro) and there is no loss of light.
|
|
|
|
07/27/2010 05:17:26 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
If you don't want to use tubes, I highly recommend a high quality close-up filter. I use the Canon 500D close up filter on my 70-200 with very pleasing results. Maybe not as good as a dedicated macro lens, but *very* portable. Plus you can keep autofocus (v useful for handheld macro) and there is no loss of light. |
But what's the point? Tubes can keep AF (my Kenko's do, even with AF-S/HSM (despite saying they won't...)), have no optical loss of quality, and suffer the same limitations (no infinity focus) without the degradation of quality... |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/07/2025 02:26:50 PM EST.
