100mm (or so) prime lens

v8moneypit

v8moneypit

Messages
942
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I've been toying with buying a prime to use in place of my 55-200 as a general walkabout lens. I would like to have the added bonus of macro if possible.

I think I've narrowed it down to the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 which seems to get rave reviews. Anyone got any 'real life' experience of this lens?

Or any other suggestions? The Nikon 105mm is no doubt a lovely lens, but rather more expensive.

It's to go on a Nikon D50, so has to be suitable for DX.
 
losbandidos said:
Nikon 60mm Micro? Do you really want something long if its a walkabout lens?
Click to expand...

'Tis a fair point. I had looked at that one. I just find I use the 55-200 across it's range, so I was making an assumption somewhere in the middle! Also, am I right in believing the longer FL will be more 'useable' for the macro work? I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't need to get so close, so more useful for insects, etc.
 
go for tokina 100mm. it's super lens, quality wow. good working distance for macro shots in region of 30cm.

i will be buying one too on xmas :)

i have another lens made by tokina (11-16mm f2.8), and it's cracking lens TBH.
 
Unfortunately not a macro lens, but the Nikon 85mm 1.8 is very, very good if you decide to go without the macro capability.:thumbs:
 
Wookee said:
Unfortunately not a macro lens, but the Nikon 85mm 1.8 is very, very good if you decide to go without the macro capability.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Another lens I'd taken a fancy to (I could spend a fortune!). Given it's a 1.8, it would work well with the extension tubes I already have. But I'd like to have the macro option without swapping bits around while out and about.
 
v8moneypit said:
'Tis a fair point. I had looked at that one. I just find I use the 55-200 across it's range, so I was making an assumption somewhere in the middle! Also, am I right in believing the longer FL will be more 'useable' for the macro work? I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't need to get so close, so more useful for insects, etc.
Click to expand...

If you use it across the range you'll be better off with a better zoom such as an 80-200.
 
Macro part
105mm nikkor (newer versions have vr too) (pics on sig below)
90mm tamron - meant to be pretty good
105mm sigma - meant to be pretty good too
150mm sigma (perhaps) - bit further away - longer working distance
180mm sigma (vague possibility)


Also get a set of tubes for the macro side - either the tenner manual ones or the kenko af ones...


Portrait part
Well you have a 55-200... so whats the range you use the most on that for portraits/in general.

If there is a range you use more then look to either get good glass that covers that range, or a few primes at either end of that range.
 
The23rdman said:
If you use it across the range you'll be better off with a better zoom such as an 80-200.
Click to expand...

It is an option, for sure. The Nikon 55-200 has been OK, as cheap budget lenses go, and it's done me proud when in good light.
The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 would be lovely, but at £1600 it's not exactly in my budget right now. I see the 80-200 f/2.8 is around £800. Might look to see what they go for second hand.



ecniv said:
Macro part
105mm nikkor (newer versions have vr too) (pics on sig below).....

Also get a set of tubes for the macro side - either the tenner manual ones or the kenko af ones...
Click to expand...

Lovely sharp images from that lens. Were some using tubes or all from the lens alone?
I already have Kenko tubes and starting to get to grips with them. But a prime lens would be so much better than a zoom on these, wouldn't it?


Sorry for my ongoing questions. Lens choice can be so confusing.... well for my small brain anyway :lol:
 
It should be mentioned in the tags whether the tubes were on... Or exif (sometimes changes to 28mm or 300mm lol, as these are the other m42 lenses I use that are manual and I forget to change the setting on the camera).

A primes is likely to be crisper than a zoom, however if funds aren't available you can make do with a filter or tubes on the zoom. raynox 250 I think it was @ 200mm is meant to be good. Around 40ukp.


The 105 nikkor should be around 300-400ukp used. Think its around 500-600 new.

If you are going to a meet and there is a nikon person there with the lens, might be worth borrowing to try it out see how good the lens is, etc... before sinking some money into it.

Macro is addictive though. :)
 
Wookee said:
Unfortunately not a macro lens, but the Nikon 85mm 1.8 is very, very good if you decide to go without the macro capability.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

This lens won't autofocus with his D50.
 
I like the old D50 over the D40 because it allows me the option of older lenses.

Anyway, after some more internet research and a suggestion on here, I went out this evening and invested in a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. I'll use this alongside my other lenses for now and see what gets used most. If it stays on the body for any real time, I'll flog the 55-200.

Thanks for the suggestions and comments. Really appreciated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top