£500 to spend on what?!?

Messages
1,318
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
ok guys, ive got around £500 to spend on a new lens.

now, i want to have the opportunity to shoot almost anything.

i have at the moment i have (all nikon)

80-200 f2.8
50 f1.8
18-135 f3.5-f5.6
70-300 f4-f5.6


now, i would like to get a macro lens, but also something longer too....

what do i do?

heres what ive been thinking about.

Nikon 105mm VR macro
Sigma 150mm Macro
or the long one

Sigma 50-500 f4-f6.3

or go for the Sigma 150mm and with whats left over get s 2x converter for my 80-200?

oh decisions...

:wave:
 
Well, the 105mm vr Nikon would add nicely to your set of Nikon glass. Tis a nice heavy chunk of glass. :)
 
Unless your 80-200 is the AF-S version you can't use a Nikon TC with it.
 
I've got both the Nikon 105 VR and the Sigma 150 - both great lenses - and find a lot of use apart from marco work. Both highly recommended!
 
I've got both the Nikon 105 VR and the Sigma 150 - both great lenses - and find a lot of use apart from marco work. Both highly recommended!

I would go along with that. Most people I know who went for the Sigma 50 - 500 have been quite dissapointed.
 
well if you can afford it why not just keep to nikon lenses
 
well if you can afford it why not just keep to nikon lenses

this ideally is want i want to do.

but i maybe hankering for some more length, and nikon dont seem to do a super zoom?

im not too keen on getting a 400 or 500mm prime lens as i feel it will be too much of a hassle everytime i want to shoot something closer. :shrug:
 
Unless your 80-200 is the AF-S version you can't use a TC with it.

Since when ?, I didn't get that memo, my 80-200 af ed works perfectly with a teleconverter, I dont like losing stops but who does ?


*chucks in spanner*:D

sell -
18-135 f3.5-f5.6
70-300 f4-f5.6

buy -
105vr
a good wide angle
maybe a mid range zoom 2.8
length gets really really expensive after 200mm
 
I know you're all Nikon just now, but the Sigma 10-20mm is simply the most fun lens I ever owned. And you'd still have £250 to play about with for a TC:)

You seem sorted out in the higher focal lengths, get yourself wide!
 
How about Sigma 105 and Sigma 10-20?


this is a possiblity, i havent thought about going wider, but thinking about it it could be very good.

i could get both for just over £500 :)

is the sigma 105 macro any good? anyone have experiance with it? and photos :)

and same for the 10-20 by sigma too .

do you think i should sell my 70-300 for the sake of £60 or keep it for that extra 100mm of length ontop of the 80-200? :help:
 
maybe not, if thats all its worth, slow coverage is better than no coverage.
That 18-135 would seem a little surplus if you had wide angle.
Its expensive to cover all possibilities with top glass.
 
I've got both the Nikon 105 VR and the Sigma 150 - both great lenses - and find a lot of use apart from marco work. Both highly recommended!
Curious to know what one you would choose if you could only keep one of these...

I'm about to buy a macro and am torn between the 105 VR and 150. Sharpness is my main concern, which would you say is sharpest?
 
Sorry - but honestly they are as good as each other. VR us useful - esp as it's a 2.8 lens - but not so useful for macro work. 150mm gives you a little more working distance - but they are both superb - I'm not parting with either! :) Sorry if that's not much help.
 
is the sigma 105 macro any good? anyone have experiance with it? and photos :)

and same for the 10-20 by sigma too .

do you think i should sell my 70-300 for the sake of £60 or keep it for that extra 100mm of length ontop of the 80-200? :help:

I have the Sigma 105 macro, it suits my skills fine, I also have the 10-20 and never leave it out of my bag, great lens if you get a good one,Sigma lenses seem a bit hit and miss with quality, guess I was lucky and got two decent ones.

All said as a novice though.......:)
 
Sorry - but honestly they are as good as each other. VR us useful - esp as it's a 2.8 lens - but not so useful for macro work. 150mm gives you a little more working distance - but they are both superb - I'm not parting with either! :) Sorry if that's not much help.
Nope thats fine! If they are as good as each other I'll go with the VR, mainly because I used to have a Sigma 105 2.8 so am used to the working distance and although I don't expect VR to work well with macro, I've found it to be a life saver with my 70-200 in the past so it may come in handy at some point!

Thanks :)
 
Back
Top