New Lens?

Hi all.

With a school graduation coming up, I may be in the market for a new lens. My wife said that we should 'Get me something as a graduation present'.

I honestly like the lenses that I currently have, but have been wondering what would expand my shooting options a little bit. Below are some options that I have thought about. I mainly shoot landscape, very little wildlife or avain. Usually I do not shoot all that wide, I tend to like to isolate elements of a scene. Any Advice?

1. Sigma 180mm Macro. I have a Nikkor 55mm micro right now that I use to shoot any macro. I honestly am not a big macro shooter with it, but I would like to do more. Will the 180mm change my outlook on macro, or would it be a waste to me?

2. Some lens to the 300mm range (or so). Currently my longest lens is a 200mm (70-210 Nikkor f4). I have thought about an 80-400mm VR, but have a hard time justifying the cost (I love my 70-210 and find that it is my most used lens).

3. Maybe I should forget getting a lens and I should just get some other equipment (though the only thing that I have thought of is a belt pack system of some sort).

Thanks!

Nathan

I have the 80-400mm VR, and this lens is very useful. When I went to Pittsburgh earlier this week I took it and my 50mm f1.8. The VR really works, the lens is sharp, and it's a great general purpose long lens. It is sort of big though. I actually do use it for landscapes too, such as at the Grand Canyon where I can zoom in on a distant detail. Since I don't routinely shoot birds with it, I am pretty happy. It takes relatively affordable 77mm filters.


Kent in SD

Nathan, I think you need to decide what your preferred upgrade route is. Do you want better quality or a more diverse selection of focal langths.
If you like the 70-210 you will LOVE the 70-200/2.8 (and with a converter it will still deliver excellent results), but if you want to explore different focal lenghts, the Sigma macro lens or the Sigma version of the 80-400 are both excellent.

Guy

Good question Guy. I am very happy with the quality of my 70-210, so right now, I think my strategy would be to explore some different focal lengths. I really like zooms for their versatility. Are there any zooms that produce results as nice as the Sigma 180 Macro, with a close to 1:1 ratio?

Thanks for the thoughts on the 80-400 VR Kent!

Nathan

Hi Nathan,
Nikon makes an excellent 70-180 Macro that reaches 1:1.3, so it is a real macro. The downside is very slow AF and dark aperture. More info : Thom Hogan Review

The Sigma 180 Macro is awesome! My review and samples here

A third possibility would be the Nikkor 300 f4 AFS....it is sharper than the 80-400, it reaches the 1:4 ratio and it can used with extension tubes as an "almost macro" lens (as Ronnie does). Moreover, you can use extenders with good quality.

A 180 macro is a great tool! If you like macro I would bay it. I use aTamron 180 macro and I like it. The Tamron 180 macro is (in Germany) a bit more expensive than the Sigma 180 but if you belive the test`s it is sharper than the sigma (wide open).

Thanks for the additional thoughts, Juza and Klaus. I DO like macro, I just do not shoot it much with my 55 micro. Any thoughts on whether the 180 macro makes shooting macro more fun (more doable)?

Nathan

Personally I would not go over 105mm for a macro lens. I can not think of anything I have ever shot (other than a few rattlesnakes) that ever needed the added reach that you are talking about. I use both a 60mm and 105mm Nikor macros and I carry along a 1.4X tele-extender and a medium range macro extension ring that covers everything else I run into. With the 105mm and the two extenders I can not only increase the focal range but increase the maginfications as well, all at the same time, for less money, and the two extenders are available for all other photo needs besides just macro.
The two extenders will also add to the reach of the lens you already have, and can be used to figure out what other lenses you may want later on. I would be sure to buy only the top make for the tele-extender from the people who made your camera. don't trey to save money on this item as it has a glass lens and you want the best quality you can get. Otherwise it will just be a waste of your money. Poor glass makes for even poorer images.

Hi Nathan,
a long focal length has two major advantages: background and reach.

The longer focal length allows to be very selective on background thanks to the narrower angle of view: in other words, if you take two photos with the same aperture, the one taken with the longer focal has the cleaner background. I recently wrote an article about macro : Macro Photography ...if you scroll down the page (to paragraph 4), you will see a comparison between two photos of the same flower, taken with the same magnification and same aperture. One is taken with a 50mm, the other with the 300mm...I think that the photos speak for themselves!

The reach is another nice plus IMHO...it is great to photograph shy subject, or when it is not comfortable to get close. I still remember when I photographed the Round-Leaf sundew with my old 50mm Macro...I had to get at 4-5cm from the plant, that was in a very wet peat bog...it is not really a comfortable way to work ;-)

For what it's worth, and for the small amount of close-up work I do, my favorite lens is my 80-400 EX OS with extention tubes. I love to shoot close-ups with long focal lengths.

Thanks all! Great thoughts. Juza, those were the two advantages that I had wondered about, I just needed some confirmation from someone else.

Thanks Paul and Jerry. I appreciate the opinions.

Nathan