Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
What Digital Camera do you have . . . Share your baby with me please !!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RavingMac" data-source="post: 1553863" data-attributes="member: 45350"><p>What are you wanting to shoot macro of, and under what conditions?</p><p></p><p>FWIW you can get some pretty good macro-ish shots with the 18-55 lens by using a tripod, remote release and good lighting.</p><p></p><p>For choosing a true macro lens, one of the determinates is the working distance (how far from the subject you will be). There are others, but this isn't really one of my areas of expertise.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: and what denotes expensive? Photography is definitely not a cheap hobby. </p><p>Most macro lens will run you between $500 and $1000, not a lot for a good lens. The Nikon 40mm is quite inexpensive at under $300 the last time I checked. Tamron 90mm gets good reviews, again, comes back to more than just $$$.</p><p></p><p>EDIT2: I will repeat the best advice I know. </p><p>Pickup the Nikon 35mm f1.8, a real bargain for under $200, and spend some quality time with it and the 18-55mm kit lens. Don't buy any other lens (except perhaps a cheap telezoom eg 55-200, 55-300 or 70-300). After you get a good feel for what your current gear can (and can't) do well you are better positioned to make informed decisions on expensive gear. </p><p>Believe me, your wallet will thank you for listening.</p><p></p><p>EDIT3: and honestly, I wouldn't even buy the cheap telezoom yet. </p><p>The problem is there is no one solution that fits every photographer. Until you know yourself (in particular what you shoot and under what conditions) you can't choose a best fit. This leads to multiple buys and overlapping lenses (not always bad).</p><p></p><p>In my case, I got the 55-200 as a kit package (a very good and often under rated lens) and soon upgraded to a 70-300mm VR (better build, faster focus and more range). In reality, the better fit for how I shoot would have been the 70-200 f4, which costs about twice what I paid for the 55-200 and 70-300. </p><p>At this point though, I can't see paying the additional cost for a significant, but not overwhelming improvement over my 70-300. If someone were to offer me what I have invested in these two lenses, I would pop for the 70-200 f4. As it is, I will concentrate my $$$ where they will buy me substantial performance upgrades.</p><p>A similar story with the Nikon 18-200, which I also own. It's a decent lens, but I wouldn't buy it today, knowing what I now know.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RavingMac, post: 1553863, member: 45350"] What are you wanting to shoot macro of, and under what conditions? FWIW you can get some pretty good macro-ish shots with the 18-55 lens by using a tripod, remote release and good lighting. For choosing a true macro lens, one of the determinates is the working distance (how far from the subject you will be). There are others, but this isn't really one of my areas of expertise. EDIT: and what denotes expensive? Photography is definitely not a cheap hobby. Most macro lens will run you between $500 and $1000, not a lot for a good lens. The Nikon 40mm is quite inexpensive at under $300 the last time I checked. Tamron 90mm gets good reviews, again, comes back to more than just $$$. EDIT2: I will repeat the best advice I know. Pickup the Nikon 35mm f1.8, a real bargain for under $200, and spend some quality time with it and the 18-55mm kit lens. Don't buy any other lens (except perhaps a cheap telezoom eg 55-200, 55-300 or 70-300). After you get a good feel for what your current gear can (and can't) do well you are better positioned to make informed decisions on expensive gear. Believe me, your wallet will thank you for listening. EDIT3: and honestly, I wouldn't even buy the cheap telezoom yet. The problem is there is no one solution that fits every photographer. Until you know yourself (in particular what you shoot and under what conditions) you can't choose a best fit. This leads to multiple buys and overlapping lenses (not always bad). In my case, I got the 55-200 as a kit package (a very good and often under rated lens) and soon upgraded to a 70-300mm VR (better build, faster focus and more range). In reality, the better fit for how I shoot would have been the 70-200 f4, which costs about twice what I paid for the 55-200 and 70-300. At this point though, I can't see paying the additional cost for a significant, but not overwhelming improvement over my 70-300. If someone were to offer me what I have invested in these two lenses, I would pop for the 70-200 f4. As it is, I will concentrate my $$$ where they will buy me substantial performance upgrades. A similar story with the Nikon 18-200, which I also own. It's a decent lens, but I wouldn't buy it today, knowing what I now know. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Digital Lifestyle
Images, Graphic Design, and Digital Photography
What Digital Camera do you have . . . Share your baby with me please !!!
Top