Newbie Lens advice!

S

Stolen_Souls

Messages
86
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after some lens advice if anyone is willing to help.

I've got myself a D70 (which I'm very happy with) and the kit lens (18-70mm). I'm looking at expanding my arsenal and picking up another couple of lenses. Specifically I'm after ones for taking sharp portrait shots and the occasional macro shot. Now I've done a fair bit of reading (reviews and the like) and I'm still a little confused. So far as I can tell my options (with an approximate £200 budget) are:

1) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 prime + use remaining cash (around £120) for a macro lens - not sure what would fall into budget though)
2) Sigma AF 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro
3) The Nikkor 50mm + some sort of lens extension tubes (which I don't really know a lot about.

As far as I can tell all of those options will put me in budget however:

Option 1 could prove expensive if I can't find a decent macro lens at that price. But apparently the Nikkor 50mm is much better than the Sigma.
Option 2 would give me the best of both worlds in one lens and is affordable. I'm not sure how much of a problem the f/2.8 apature would be compared to the Nikkor f/1.8 though), plus I hear it's not quite up to the standard of the Nikkor lens
Option 3 would allow me to have the best of both worlds, a top quality 50mm prime, with the option of taking macro shots also. However I don't know a lot about the extension rings (how they work, which are good, if I'd be sacrificing anything etc etc.)

Can anyone in the know please help me out? I'm far from a pro user (as you can probably tell from my questions), I'd like to take a lot more portaits, and I'd only plan on using the macro lens occasionally for more "arty" and ususual type shots.

Help!

Mike
 
Having made the right gear choice in the first place :)nikon: ... :D ) the choices are somewhat dazzling Mike ...:eek:

However, as Joe says you should stick with the Nikkor if you can ... you cannot beat them ...imo ...:D

However Nikkor macros are a little dear so the Sigma idea put by Joe is probably a good alternative ... though I don't know anything about the brand except they always seem to get reasonable reviews ...:shrug:

Whatever you go for ... enjoy it and use the knowledge base on the forum ... there's a huge amount of talent and experience at your beck and call here ... don't be afraid to ask ...(y)


:p
 
Well I'm off to the states on Friday and I think lenses are slightly cheaper there, so that might improve my budget by a small amount.

Joe - is there any chance you could give me a brief idiots overview to the extension tubes? Would I be sacraficing anything (focusing ability, true 1:1 reproduction for example). Do they offer any advantages?

Basically, what's the difference between them and a macro lens?
 
In response to Ven, I'd say that Sigma lenses are generally very good. However, like any brand there are good and bad models. The Sigma lenses that I have (see sig) perform admirably, and I would recommend them to anyone who does not have hige amounts of money to spend.

The Nikkor 50mm is, like all 50mm lenses, a bargain. However, you have to be in a position to use it. By that I mean, the fixed focal length (of 75mm on a D70) is not always that useful. For shooting your son (congrats btw!) it should be ideal.
 
Is this the sigma you meant here:
http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=110

If it is then I think I should be able to get that within budget in the states (or I can push the budget up slightly) however did you mean to just get that lens on it's own and use it for both portraits and macro shots, or to get it in addition to the nikkor 50mm?

If I remember rightly the longer focal length means that I'd be able to be further away from the subject for macro shots, which is great, however would it mean I'd have to hang out of a window in order to take a portrait shot?
 
I can put forward a hearty recomendation for the Sigma 105 macro. It is an excellent lens.
Tho for portraiture 105*1.6(?nikon?) is a bit long.
 
Thats the one.

You will have to be a fair distance from the subject for portraits.

However, for macro its much better. Unless you are shooting insects, in which case you my find you want even more length!

Ideally get both! But if that's too much then I would suggest the 50mm plus tubes. The 105mm is very slow to focus (like most dedicated macro lenses). This might be too slow for a fast moving child!
 
Extension tubes reduce the min. focus distance by reducing the max. focus distance - you can focus closer but lose infinity. With a full set of tubes on a 50mm you will get higher than 1:1 reproduction but the working distance (from the end of the lens to the subject) will be a couple of inches which is the real problem - you're more likely to cast a shadow on your subject and if you're shooting insects scare them away.

You'll also lose a stop of two with tubes. Another option might be to get one of Nikon's close-up filters which effectively do the same thing as tubes but don't lose any light.

With tubes or a close-up filter focusing will be down to moving the camera back and forth rather than relying on the focus ring, AF will be a non-starter.

HTH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top