02-25-2011, 02:21 PM
[quote name='rudolf' timestamp='1298641874' post='6360']
I have a somewhat similar question:
I thought that I might add a macro to my setup, - the question remains: which one, and will it complement or replace smth. (not necessarily make any lens to leave the cupboard, but stay on the camera instead of another lens).
My setup is Nikon -
D50, D700, some recent AF-D lenses (20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 80-200/2.8), some AF-S (18-70mm, 17-35mm and 200mm VR1), TC17 and a couple of flashes.
My attention drew 60mm AF-D, 200mm AF-D and 70-180mm AF-D - I like that AF/MF switch, and they are impeccable.
I would prefer 60mm AF-D to AF-S, and I am not really interested in 105mm VR (although with TC17 it would make an interesting combination).
200/4 is the most controversial - that would be the 3rd bulky 200mm.
60mm is likely to compete with 50mm, and I do not plan to specialise on stamps, etc.
Which leads me to 70-180mm, - and its overlap with 80-200.
For all I know, 70-180 seems to be a safe bet. And I start to think that it actually may well replace 80-200 on a stroll or hike, or in a venue where you can use a flash. And you can go very close if you want to.
My question is -- is 70-180 good enough for things that are not very close?
[/quote]
Sure, the 70-180 is good enough for close up stuff. But so is your 70-200mm VR, your 80-200mm f2.8. Just add an extension tube (kenko makes good affordable sets), like a 25mm one, and you will have a zoom tele lens that does the same as that 70-180mm micro, with IQ to match and a very low price.
Other interesting macro lenses to consider:
The Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. The sharpest lens for full frame you will have, better than the Nikon 60mm.
The SIgma 150mm f2.8 macro. Great lens with silent and "fast" (for a macro lens) AF.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5. Great optics and not the weight of the Nikon.
I have a somewhat similar question:
I thought that I might add a macro to my setup, - the question remains: which one, and will it complement or replace smth. (not necessarily make any lens to leave the cupboard, but stay on the camera instead of another lens).
My setup is Nikon -
D50, D700, some recent AF-D lenses (20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 80-200/2.8), some AF-S (18-70mm, 17-35mm and 200mm VR1), TC17 and a couple of flashes.
My attention drew 60mm AF-D, 200mm AF-D and 70-180mm AF-D - I like that AF/MF switch, and they are impeccable.
I would prefer 60mm AF-D to AF-S, and I am not really interested in 105mm VR (although with TC17 it would make an interesting combination).
200/4 is the most controversial - that would be the 3rd bulky 200mm.
60mm is likely to compete with 50mm, and I do not plan to specialise on stamps, etc.
Which leads me to 70-180mm, - and its overlap with 80-200.
For all I know, 70-180 seems to be a safe bet. And I start to think that it actually may well replace 80-200 on a stroll or hike, or in a venue where you can use a flash. And you can go very close if you want to.
My question is -- is 70-180 good enough for things that are not very close?
[/quote]
Sure, the 70-180 is good enough for close up stuff. But so is your 70-200mm VR, your 80-200mm f2.8. Just add an extension tube (kenko makes good affordable sets), like a 25mm one, and you will have a zoom tele lens that does the same as that 70-180mm micro, with IQ to match and a very low price.
Other interesting macro lenses to consider:
The Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. The sharpest lens for full frame you will have, better than the Nikon 60mm.
The SIgma 150mm f2.8 macro. Great lens with silent and "fast" (for a macro lens) AF.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5. Great optics and not the weight of the Nikon.