Suggestions for Nikon Lens?

[Nogbad]

Hi currently have D200 and have the kit 18-70mm lens, the 60mm macro and the 70-300 VR lens. All Nikon lenses.

I will be able to afford a new lens in the next 3-4 months and wil have about
£1000- to £1200 to play with maybe a little more.

I had thought of buying the 70-200 f2.8 VR IFED G nikkor.

Any comments suggestions from other Nikon users would be really really helpful.

Many thanks and regards

Nogbad

[Canis Vulpes]

I my opinion 70-200 f2.8 VR is one of Nikon's finest. Others state the lens is one of the sharpest zooms ever...

Enough hype, here is the truth.

At f2.8 is quite soft but usable, please don't let this scare you off.
f3.5 to f4.5 sharp
f4.5 to f11 Very sharp.
f11 and beyond I have no experience.

This lens is easily conpliemented by both 1.4 and 1.7X Nikon TC's. I have no experience of the 2.0X but some suggest its okay. All my Safari pics in the gallery are from this lens some at f2.8 and a TC!

If you get this lens it will not dissappoint.

[Leif]

What do you like/want to photograph? That might influence the decision just a tad.

Do you have a good tripod and head? A cable release? Image editing software? A printer? All these IMO are as important as the lenses.

There are several things lacking from your lenses.

No true wide angle. A 12-24mm zoom would do. The Tokina and Nikon ones are good. I do not use mine much, but when I do, I really like the results. Actually the only reason I do not use it is lack of ability. It demands so much to get good results.

No long. Sadly Nikon do not really do long at modest cost. Don's 400mm F5.6 is available at reasonable cost, and is nice, as I am sure he will confirm. I have the Sigma APO Macro equivalent which is okay.

Of my lenses, the real gem is the 200mm micro. Next is the 60mm micro, now replaced with an 85mm tilt shift micro. Third the 12-24mm zoom. But then again my obsession is close ups, and I even use the wide angle zoom for that.

[Nogbad]

Hi guys i shoot Macro, Landscape and wildlife. I have CS2, Manfrotto pro 190B tripod and ball head, and a cable release.

I have plenty of batteries CF cards and most other gear but feel there is something lacking in the lens department.

I quite like the idea of a wide angle but am uncertain if it would get the use it deserves.

Nogbad

[Canis Vulpes]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

Hi guys i shoot Macro, Landscape and wildlife. I have CS2, Manfrotto pro 190B tripod and ball head, and a cable release.

I think a mid range zoom (70-200) is not going to be too good for Macro, Landscape or Wildlife. As already suggested 12-24 f4 G is Nikon's finest for Landscape, any of the longer primes will have Wildlife covered and you already have a very good Macro. 70-200 simply does not fit into any of your categories of interest.

[Don Hoey]

Enviable position to be in Nogbad.

My question is are you happy with the quality of the lenses you have and do they cover the range of your subjects sufficiently. You mention the 70-200 f2.8 VR IFED G Nikkor which sits in the same slot as your 70-300, hence the question.

Following what others have mentioned, then I have the 12-24, but wide angles of this nature are a bit of an aquired taste. If you rarely use the 18mm end of your kit lens then I would pass on it for now.

So although I have no experience of it I will throw in the AF-S 17-55mm f2.8 as an upgrade of the kit lens but then only if you use that a lot.

My real thought is that you go through your images and see the proportion at various focal lengths and then consider any weaknesses you feel in that area. ie if 300mm is used a lot and you do a lot of cropping then something to get you to 400mm is in order. If the kit lens is often used in poor light and you struggle to get to its optimum f8 without winding up ISO, then this is the weak link.

If you want longer reach than the 300 end of your zoom then you could think in terms of the 300 f4 and tc for autofocus. Manual focus a used 400 f5.5 IFED is highly recommended as that is what I have. But ...................... and there is always a but, your 190 legs are not really up to 400 and beyond. Not sure where in the Manfrotto range your ball head is either.

New hobby .......... virtual spending of other peoples money.

Don

[Joe]

Nogbad,
Zoom lenses aside for a moment. I read you do some macro work....
If you want the ultimate in macro quality there is really only one lens to consider..... Nikons very own 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR glass.
A small business specialising in watches and jewelry bought one from us not too long ago, wanting the sharpest clearest pics, we tried them all, the quality from that lenses blew all competition away! (inc similar optics from Canon and Zeiss)
Forget Sigma, Tamron or even the debate of Nikon vs Canon...there is simply no competition....
If you want REALLY amazing macro shots this is the lens to go for....
Take your zoom lenses off you thought were good and try one to see the difference

....and you'll thank me for it when you ditch the 60mm! lol


Failing this, a 400mm seems the logical next step, as Don suggests.
A f/5.6 version if buying new, or maybe an f/4 if buying s/h (and don't mind manual focus)

Good luck and happy hunting for gear...wishing I was there!

[Nogbad]

Thanks guys, to be honest I am fairly happy with the 70-300 VR but I find I do crop a fair bit. I also use it for flower photography it has an excellent DOf for this kind of subject.

With regards to Joe's comments re the Macro he has me thinking. I must admit I find the 60mm a bit of a pain having to get in close to some subjects and finding the light tails off somewhat. I had thought obout the 105mm VR but had heard mixed reactions. Anyone else who has good comments re this lens I would be pleased to hear.

Don I understand what you mean about the Manfrotto Tripod and head. The tripod is sound for my current set up and the ball head is a 486RC2 which is adequate for what I need at the moment.

It sounds like if I go for a larger 400mm I will need to change the head and possibly the Tripod as well?

Nogbad

[ollieholmes]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

I think a mid range zoom (70-200) is not going to be too good for Macro, Landscape or Wildlife. As already suggested 12-24 f4 G is Nikon's finest for Landscape, any of the longer primes will have Wildlife covered and you already have a very good Macro. 70-200 simply does not fit into any of your categories of interest.

A 70-200 could be nice for ladscapes, i would use it for picking out the details. It is also a nice size lens for general use but the problem with both of them is that it is long and that makes it harder to carry around.
I would use it for a nice general lens and landscape lens as often for my landscapes i whant to zoom in more than i whant to open my lens right out.

[Joe]

Nogbad,
regarding the head/tripod change...I just watched a s/h 400mm f/2.8 AFS Nikkor go for under £900 on the dreaded ebay.
Always a bit of a risk on ebay (seller offered pick up which I probably would've taken), but I have to admit that if I had your budget I would've been very tempted!....
It would probably gaurantee you need some seriuos scaffolding to hold one of those monster's in place!