Yes, another "What Lens(es)" question.

[BullcreekBob]

G'day

My wife has a D40X with the 18-55mm kit which we recently bought. I have a D70S which I got a couple of years ago with the 18-70mm kit lens. I've also got an F1.8 50mm and a Sigma F4-5.6 70-300mm APO DG Macro. Now that I've got the hang of using the D70S, and my lenses, I can say that I'm not a wide-angled sort of photo taker, never have been, my eyes don't see things that way, I prefer to focus on details rather than the whole picture. The things my lenses don't do, that I'd like to, include;

- sharp images of elements within a zoomed landscape,
- closeups of wildflowers,
- sharper portraits.

I will have about $2,000 to spend when I go to Singapore next month. I will probably not have any more lens money untill Christmas 2008. The options I've considered are;

1) Buy a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR - from all accounts and the short loan I've had, this is a great lens. At one end of it's range will give me portraits, the other end will do landscapes. No macro though.

2) Buy a Nikon 80-200 F2.8 ED, a sort of obsolete poor mans version of the 70-200 but no manual focus over-ride which I'd really miss. This would leave me the funds for a macro lens, perhaps the Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR.

3) Get more Sigma lenses, perhaps the APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro which is not really a macro but closer focussing at 1 metre compared to the 2 metres of the Nikon 80-200mm. Then get a Sigma Macro the 150mm F2.8 EX DG which seems to get better reviews than either the 105mm or 70mm F2.8 macro lenses. Although the 105mm may have the benefit of better portraiture shots.

I guess there's even a forth option of buying a good Macro and the Nikon 18-200mm VR which will predominantly live on my wife's camera making her happy while I continue to struggle with the Sigma 70-300mm untill I can afford a 70-200mm VR late next year. I don't overly like this option.

I would appreciate any thoughts.

Thanks
Bob in Bull Creek

[Oz_Beachside]

I will have about $2,000 to spend ...

2) Buy a Nikon 80-200 F2.8 ED, a sort of obsolete poor mans version of the 70-200 but no manual focus over-ride which I'd really miss. This would leave me the funds for a macro lens, perhaps the Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR.

umm, what do you mean no Manual Focus? just turn the ring (there are many versions of this lens). I had the recent one, and its great value. if you dont need VR, get the 80-200. I would NOT call it a poor man's version, same glass and just great.

[Oz_Beachside]

if you love to highlight the subject, with beautiful bokeh, and your sigma is doing well for you, have you considered the dreamy 84/1.4 and zoom with your feet?

[BullcreekBob]

[quote="Oz_Beachside
umm, what do you mean no Manual Focus? just turn the ring (there are many versions of this lens). I had the recent one, and its great value.[/quote]
G'day

If I want the manual focus over-ride, I'd need the AF-S version which is around $1,600 (an extra $600) and if I get that, I probably won't have enough left over for a second len of choice - whatever that choice is !!

Bob

[Yi-P]

Option 1... buy the 70-200VR, sell your 70-300 Sigma, with the left over, head for a ~$400-450 Tamron 90mm Macro...

Then be the happiest shooter out there with those

[gstark]

Bob,

Will this glass ever take up any sort of residence at all on your wife's camera? If so, you may need to also consider the reduced options available on that body.

[BullcreekBob]

Option 1... buy the 70-200VR, sell your 70-300 Sigma, with the left over, head for a ~$400-450 Tamron 90mm Macro...

Then be the happiest shooter out there with those

G'day

Sadly there will be no left over, if I get the 70-200mm the budget is all gone. The Sigma would not even make a down payment on any other lens.

[BullcreekBob]

Bob,

Will this glass ever take up any sort of residence at all on your wife's camera? If so, you may need to also consider the reduced options available on that body.

It's possible that the 70-300mm will sometimes go on her D40X and also the Macro if we get one. She is happy with Manual Focus so that means there is no reason to restrict lens choices.

Cheers
Bob

[MATT]

edit.. Bob posted while I was typing

Have fun

MATT

[Ben_S]

Hi Everyone,

This is my first post in this forum. Just joined about a hour ago!

Bob,

You and I have exactly the same lens collection. I use them on my D70.
Both the Sigma 150mm and Nikon 105mm VR are good lenses. Last week I received my Sigma 150mm macro, bought it for $766 new from an online store in Sydney. I choose the Sigma over the Nikon for shooting small things such like an insects, a longer reach for a prime lens, and the price. Besides, the VR won't work for a macro shot. I heard even the Nikon manual ask the VR to be turned off for a macro shot. But the 105mm VR has the advantage for portrait shots, being shorter than the 150mm.

Anyway, maybe it is time for you to upgrade your Sigma lens to do a real size macro, no matter which brand you choose?

Ben_S

[chrisk]

bob, i have used alot of the lens' your considering quite a bit. the 70-200VR is worth every penny. super sharp, super fast, very quiet, creamy bokeh, awesome VR functionality. imo, its worth the extra $$$ over the 80-200 purely based on the focus speed and VR.

for macro, if you want close ups of wildflowers, the best bet for you is any of the following:

cheapest option:
buy some kenko extn tubes to bolt onto your existing lens'. this gives you the macro features you want, (albeit with a bit more hassle), for about $150.

cheapest dedicated macro lens option:
tamron 90mm f2.8. i owned this lens before i recently upgraded to the sigma. i loved it and bought it second hand off ebay for around $390. it won;t AF on the d40x though.

sigma 150mm f2.8 vs nikkor 105VR. both will AF on the d40x. i used both alot before i invested in the sigma. i;m lucky enough to have friends that own them. i really wanted the additional range so i picked up the sigma. they are indistinguishable in sharpness, i noticed not one iota of difference. the VR for macro i found very handy for bright skies and flower shots but any really super close stuff with small DOF i was rarely able to use it, but was pretty good for portraits. however be aware of 2 things i noticed with the 105VR compared to the siggie:

1. the nikkor focuses more accuratley; i found the sigma can hunt alot more and needs clear contrast points for AF to work truly. the nikkor focussed flawlessly.
2. the colour of the nikkor is more neutral, the sigma can be a tad contrasty.

hope that helps.