Looking for two new lenses...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by slick316, May 16, 2008.

  1. slick316 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #1
    to compliment what I already have (which isn't much).

    I have a D40x with the kit lens (18-55mm) and a Sigma 10-20mm wide angle.

    For my birthday, my sister wants to get me a new lens and so do my parents. I figured, a telephoto lens and a macro lens would be great compliments to what I have.

    Not trying to break the bank here. I know my sister will use her $600 stimulus check on whatever I want and even agreed to spend all of it on me, but I'd rather not have her spend that much (she won't take no for an answer, I told her to just get me a dummies guide to photography, lol, apparently, that wasn't good enough).

    I saw that Nikon has a new 55-200mm VR lens that retails for $300. It appears to be a nice lens, but I'm no expert. I'm just learning still, but I figured that having lenses for different situations wouldn't be a bad idea.

    So whats the thought on the Nikon 55-200mm VR? And what about a decently priced macro lens?
     
  2. nburwell macrumors 68030

    nburwell

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Location:
    PHL
    #2
    If you are still in the learning phase, then the Nikkor 55-200VR lens will be more than enough for you. I got my girlfriend the 55-200 (non-VR) for Christmas since she only had the 18-55 kit lens, and she loves the reach it gives her. Plus, once you feel restricted by your current lens lineup, you can sell your current lenses and upgrade if you need to.
     
  3. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #3
    The 55-200 VR is a good lens, it has received very good reviews and it would compliment perfectly with the kit lens. But maybe you may want to check out the 70-300 VR. It is a better lens, has longer reach, has a better build and true AF-S. Tho this lens is around $500.

    As for macro, currently I am also in searching for one. If you want to have autofocus your only options are the 60 VR and the 105 VR. But in macro photography autofocus is not needed that much.
    The 60 VR hasn't received many reviews yet, but the few that have reviewed it appear to put this lens as an excellent macro lens.
    The 105 VR has a longer reach and consequently a better bokeh, which makes this lens also excellent for portraiture work.

    How much are you looking to spend in the macro lens? And what do you want to shoot (flowers, insects, etc.)?
     
  4. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #4
    I have used the sigma 50mm DG macro a fair bit on my D70 - I think it's pretty excellent. Some people may feel it's a bit short, and of course it will not focus on the D40. The 55-200mm is generally thought to be a fine tele.
     
  5. slick316 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #5
    Thanks for the great advice guys. I think I will look into the Nikon 55-200mm and the 70-300mm. My parents don't mind spending the money on the lens, so I think I will just have them get me the 70-300mm, but I will look into the 55-200mm first, the less the spend, the happier I will be.

    I guess I will hold off on the macro because I really would like one that auto focuses, and I do not want my sister spending that kind of money on it. I think a carrying case and extra battery are in order, she should be alright with me getting that.

    I'll buy the macro myself since its not going to be cheap. I want to shoot flowers and really, anything on a very close up scale (I like watches and am part of the timezone forums, some of these guys have amazing close up shots of dial detail on their watches). With the macro lens, I would like to take a close up shot of something to see the detail that I couldn't just see with my eyes.

    Thanks again for all the help.
     
  6. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #6
    I'm buying the 105 VR, hopefully I'll order it tonight or tomorrow. And it should be arriving next week.:) I'll make sure to post here how it goes. For flowers I think this one is better suited than the 60mm.

    I'm really excited because this would be the first lens I buy since I started in photography. I think Nikon is starting to create a certain change in me just like Apple has made it.:p
     
  7. onomatopoeia macrumors 6502

    onomatopoeia

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    #7
    I recently purchased the 105 VR just for the bokeh...it's really good. I still wonder if I should have gotten the 85mm 1.4 though. Still, I figure I got a solid dual purpose lens for about $300 less.
     
  8. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #8
    That depends. What's the 105? 1.8, 2.8?
     
  9. slick316 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #10
    Wait, you got the 105mm VR for under $300? Where at?
     
  10. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #11
    The 85mm 1.4 is around $1000 in Amazon. Right there you can also get the 105 VR at around $750. Almost $300 less.

    I have never used the 85mm 1.4, but why is it soooo expensive??
     
  11. slick316 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #12
    My apologies, I didn't read your post right, I thought you wrote it was $300. There doesn't seem to be any inexpensive but good macro's for the D40x, so I don't think I will skimp on this.

    Looking forward to hearing your impression of the lens when it arrives.
     
  12. onomatopoeia macrumors 6502

    onomatopoeia

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    #13
    It is a steep price but it's an amazing combination of unmatched clarity and perfect bokeh. Lots of good stuff in the Flickr group.

    All the Nikon pro-grade primes are pricey.
     
  13. fotografica macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Location:
    Boston
    #14
    I just this one,below..Not the fanciest I know,but I'm looking forward to trying it out..I figured for the price point,it's worth having it...
     

    Attached Files:

  14. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #15
    It would be helpful knowing what you're interested in shooting but anyway.

    I would suggest not getting a zoom lens at all unless you need to do some bird watching, get either a nice prime lens and something on the wider end of the zoom range like a 16-35.

    Those lens will teach you to get close to your subject and the prime lens will force you to move around and try things from different angles. All a zoom will do is have you keep your distance, the closer the better I practice.
     
  15. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #16
    You pay for optics by the square inch. Squares inches depend on the diameter of the glass elements and the number of elements (remember pi * r^2) Just take a look at the size of the glass in a 1.4 85mm lens. It's a large complex lens. This also ansers why those f/5.6 zooms are so cheap

    For a give focal length an f/1.8 lens will 4 times larger diameter than an f/5.6 lens. This means 16 times more square area of glass.

    You D40X is going to want AF-S lenses. This means you can'r use the ones I like best. My 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 But Nikon did just come out with an AF-S 60mm macro lens Although macro is the one place where manual focus is prefered.

    Do you have a nice tripod yet? What about an SB600 speedlight Either of these would help youa much or more then a new lens. You will need the trpod to effectively use either a very long f/5.6 lens or a macro lens. And nothing helps people pictures as much as bounce or defused flash
     
  16. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #17
    What about one of the Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 DC HSM + Sigma 150-500 OS HSM?

    I would also look at the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 DC HSM
     
  17. slick316 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    #18
    I currently have a SB-400 and a decent tripod from Sunpak. The SB-400 is helping me a lot with indoor shots, for now, it seems to be what I need.

    As far as a zoom lens goes, I figured having it is probably better than not having it. I plan on taking some trips this year and next year and would like to be covered for as many situations as I can be. For the price though, I can afford the 55-200mm VR Nikon lens myself and not have it impact other purchases.

    I do like my 10-20mm Sigma, so I will look into the Sigma suggestions also.

    As far as shooting, I want to shoot whatever and whenever. I am not a photographer, and never will claim to be. But to be honest, I find some personal satisfaction in taking a nice picture, whatever it may be. I absolutely hate pictures that people take using P&S cameras and what not. I don't want to look back 20 years from now and see crappy photos that I have taken.
     

Share This Page