A better carryaround lens than 18-200mm VR for Nikon D300

[phoenix_kiula]

I started my semi-serious photography with D200 a couple years ago and the 18-200 VR was all the rage at the

time. This gear has served me well, but now that I am getting serious about photography I see that the

performance of this lens, while versatile, is simply not as good as special lenses.

 

These forums are super in terms of the knowledge shared, but frankly the more I read the more confused I get

about what to buy. In an ideal world I'd just buy every good glass that had a positive feedback but these are big

investments of money so I want something I will surely use.

 

My request: I am looking for an excellent macro lens (the kind that shows the lines on a bug, its wings, even the

iris in its eyes) but something that also doubles up as a general purpose lens when I need to take pictures of

churches, or people, or a landscape.

 

My contenders:

 

1. Nikon 85mm f/1.4mm (legendary lens)

2. Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR (almost up there in performance with Zeiss 100m f/2 and better build than Tamron 90mm)

3. Nikon 70-200mm (comes highly recommended all over)

 

The 70-200mm could be a decent one in terms of performance but it is an unwieldy beast and not exactly cheap.

Many on these forums have said that the 105mm can also serve as a somewhat cheaper 70-200mm, but I'm worried if

it is too "macro". Ditto for 85mm, which is also quite expensive.

 

Would appreciate some thoughts!

[phoenix_kiula]

Not sure why this forum mangles my list. These are my contenders, in no particular order:

<p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon 85mm f/1.4mm (legendary lens) </li>

<li>Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR (almost up there in performance with Zeiss 100m f/2 and better build than Tamron 90mm) </li>

<li>Nikon 70-200mm (comes highly recommended all over) </li>

</ol>

[ted_springer]

You can do all of those things with the 105 VR but portraits are kind of flat looking. 85 1.4 for portraits. The 70-200mm with

canon 500d close up filter great all around but is extremely heavy for walking around. There will always be compromise.

[tim_knight]

Tamron 17-50/2.8. Rent it for a weekend.

[phoenix_kiula]

Thanks Tim. Does the Tamron provide good bokeh? In general I prefer Nikon glass because it's aftermarket value is

incredible.

[ronald_moravec1]

I never heard the 85 1.4 was partiularly good for really close work ( close portraits ok). 70/200 is twice the size /weight of what you have.

 

I suggest a 60 2.8 or 105 2.8 AF D. The 105 VR is really quite large.

 

I found a nice 105 AI for my D200 at a camera show for $100. Stellar lens. Gets down to about 1:4 and a quality close up lens or bellows or tubes will get it to really close range. Auto focus is of little value in micro work. I mention this as the old manual focus lenses are quite cheap and work 98% of the fancy new optics at 1/5 the price. Sometimes better.

 

It would seem you have really not totally learned the 18/200 lesson. If you want a lens for close work, that`s what you buy. Not some zoom thing again.

 

A 28 2.8 AI S + 60 2.8 or 55 2.8 + 105 of your choice would be a perfect set up. I am very specific about the 28 2.8 AI S with CRC as it is the only Nikkor wide almost no distortion. No other 28 has the qualities this one has. I just bought a mint one for $400 to show how I feel about it. My first was damaged in an accident and is now being repaired.

 

85 2.0 135 3.5 and 200 4.0 all AI S are all wonderful lenses optically and are small and easy to carry. I paid 175, 65, and 100 for mine. All are great lenses.

[alex_b9]

You'll need to narrow your citeria or lower your expectations. A lens doesn't exist that will deliver first-rate results when shooting bugs very, very close-up (macro), landscapes (wide) and people (normal to short tele). 'Special lenses' excel in relatively narrow applications. Consider the subject matter that grabs your interest and ample recommendations will be forthcoming. Consider the 18-200 you currently own; good for everything, optically excels at nothing. It seems you'll need at least a couple lenses. Do you have a budget in mind?

[photo5]

The Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom is the best zoom I've ever used. It surpasses the 18-200mm VR in every way and beat my old favorite the Nikon 18-70mm.

[Matthew Brennan]

Hi there,

 

If you want to retain the convenience of AF and zooming focal lengths then you must simply split your current 18-200mm focal range - no one lens will do everything you ask. I had the exact same decission to make and I too, was shooting with the D200 and 18-200mm VR. I opted for a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM which were both excellent on the D200 and D300. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikkor is indeed a massive 'carry around' lens but the results just about always bely the cost and inconvenience of weight. I'm really enjoying mine at present.

 

I also use an inexpensive Nikkor AIS 200mm f/4 lens which will work well on your D200, costing well under US $200 for a well cared for second hand copy and weighs virtually nothing compared to anything else that reaches 200mm. Of course the compromise is that it is MF, has no fancy ED glass and produces a little CA at some settings but you can carry it in your kit to the end of the earth and not notice it until it's required. Check out the few reviews on this one - Bjorn Rorslett likes this one too!

 

If you say your are becoming more serious about your photography then a wise investment in top flite Nikkor glass now will hold you in good stead into the future. As a generalised rule you get what you pay for with Nikkor glass but only as a general rule, there are always exceptions.

 

If you want to shoot close up macro then purchase a dedicated macro lens with 1:1 reproduction - don't expect it to double as a super quality portrait lens, just accept that it will be likely to be an acceptable potrait lens. I use an older Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro lens which was dirt cheap at approx US $120 incl shipping for a mint condition copy- the Kiron produces very pleasing results on the D200. If you want to get serious about macro then AF will be of limited use to you in a dedicated macro lens - just one more way to save money.

 

If you want to save some money then compromise is around every corner. I suggest you try the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 as you are likely to use this focal range a lot on a D200 and try an Ai or AiS lens or two for minimal outlay and great value and performance for bucks......

[shuo_zhao]

>> "I am looking for an excellent macro lens (the kind that shows the lines on a bug, its wings, even the iris in its eyes) but something that also doubles up as a general purpose lens when I need to take pictures of churches, or people, or a landscape."

 

You want to find a lens that will work as an architecture lens, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, a macro lens, and a general purpose lens. It's hard to find a single lens will would do all these jobs well; and something like the 18-200 or 16-85 are probably as close as it gets. The range of FL needed for portraits and macro will be restrictive for landscape and architectural shots.

 

In order for things to work out better, you may need to get/use multiple lenses to get the best results. Otherwise, the 18-200 remains a feasible choice as a "carryaround" lens.

[Albins images]

>> "I am looking for an excellent macro lens (the kind that shows the lines on a bug, its wings, even the iris in its

eyes) but something that also doubles up as a general purpose lens when I need to take pictures of churches, or

people, or a landscape."

 

 

Reading this, you should definitely start with a good micro lense, if only to find out that most bugs do not have irises!

[sorry - could not resist..].

 

The proposed lenses are all rather expensive. A more 'budget' approach could consist of:

50/1.8 + 18-70/3.5-4.5 + 105/2.8 micro (any version).

....And build from there!

[elliot1]

"The Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom is the best zoom I've ever used. It surpasses the 18-200mm VR in every way "

 

Dave, it isn't very good above 85mm.

 

Phoenix, keep in mind that excellent lighting is just as important as the lens you choose in order to get the kind of detail you are looking for. You<div></div>

[elliot1]

Macro photography requires a macro lens.

[phoenix_kiula]

Thanks all for the pragmatic advice.

 

Albin, thanks for those suggestions. I'm thinking about 50mm f/1.4, which may be slightly better than f/1.8 -- the price differential is not that huge. Looks like 105mm 2.8 may be the next one in my arsenal.

 

Elliot, thanks for sharing the pic. Boy that background is like a Chinese statement! :) I think I'm looking for even sharper pictures, without standing on the top of the bug. Something like these:

 

 

Which specific macro lens would you recommend? Some of these spectacular shots are with 105mm apparently.

 

Gives me a starting point.

[Two23]

For bugs, you are going to need a longer lens. I think a 105mm VR is the starting point. All in all I think you are being a bit unreasonable and still looking for a lens that is perfect for everything. As my strategy evolved, I ditched all my single focal lenses and went with Nikon's best and most modern f2.8 zooms. For me, that was the smartest thing I could have done because I value fast glass, pro level image quality, and great flexibility. If I were more into macro I would likely end up with the 105mm VR since macro IS a specialty.

 

 

Kent in SD

[phoenix_kiula]

Thanks Kent. Yes, I'm interested in macro, very much. So I can skip 50mm f/1.4 for that? The Flickr and PN example shots seem pretty amazing with that lens. Of course 105mm is a big hole in the pocket.

 

Out of curiosity, may I ask which f/2.8 specifically you're referring to?

[Albins images]

Elliot Bernstein wrote: "Macro photography requires a macro lens." I tend to disagree. Unless you'd describe general close-up photography as 'macro' and extreme enlargements (> 1:1) as 'micro'... Indeed, some of the examples that Phoenix selected are perfectly doable with a Nikkor 105/2.8. No doubt recommendable anyway, very versatile, not only for close-ups. I love that lens (in my case, the older MF version), and on DX sensor long enough for my taste. For extreme enlargements, I usually apply other combinations, often NOT dedicated micro lenses. Often short ones are involved, like 50 or 24 mm.

 

See for results: http://www.flickr.com/photos/albinonflickr/2392920231/ and

 

Good luck with your choices! And yes, it would be nice to have a bunch of 2.8 zooms as well, no doubt about it.

[phoenix_kiula]

Thanks Albin. These two shots are stunning. What lens did you use for that - 105mm or a 50mm?

[elliot1]

Albin, thanks for correcting me - I should have stated a macro lens or macro type setup (reversing ring, bellows,

rings, close-up filters, etc) rather than a standard zoom lens.

[phule]

[[Not sure why this forum mangles my list.]]

 

New lines require hitting return twice.

[SCL]

Why not see if you could borrow or rent a 105/2.8 (non-VR) for a couple of days and see if it fills your needs and expectations. I've used it a lot, as well as a much older MF Leica lens in a Visoflex mount on my Nikon for macro work, and I'm pleased with both. For macro work you will probably find that AF isn't all that good due to the extremely narrow focus areas and narrow DOF.

[eric_arnold]

"I am looking for an excellent macro lens (the kind that shows the lines on a bug, its wings, even the iris in its eyes) but something that also doubles up as a general purpose lens when I need to take pictures of churches, or people, or a landscape."

 

phoenix, that's a tall order. you're describing at least two and possibly three lenses. i don't think there is one lens out there which will meet ALL of your criteria.

 

forget about the 85 or the 70-200 for close-up photography. great for portraits and bokeh though. if you want to use a prime for landscapes, i'd get something a little wider, actually a lot wider, like a 20, 24, or 35mm. the 105 VR is a good macro/portrait switch-hitter, and if you want 1:1 macro plus AF-S for portraits, not to mention VR for handholding, it could be the one, but for multiasking such as you describe, i'd also consider the sigma 17-70. it's 2.8 on the wide end, has a nice range, and goes to 1:2 macro, which may not be close enough for bugs (for that you want something like the sigma 150, which is probably too long for portraits/landscape).

 

you might also want to consider the tamron 70-200/2.8 which has better close-up performance than the nikon counterpart (but no AF-S or VR), although not as good as some of the shorter semi-macro 3rd party zooms, like the sigma 18-50 and the tamron 28-75. either of those or the sigma 17-70 would give you better IQ than the 18-200; but then so will any non-kit nikkor.

 

ultimately i'd say it comes down to how much into macro you plan on getting, as opposed to overall performance (with some close-up abilities). you may be better off getting a zoom for landscape and a dedicated macro for close-up and portraiture. there's gonna be compromises no matter what path you take, so prioritize your needs accordingly.

[eric_arnold]

"I'm thinking about 50mm f/1.4, which may be slightly better than f/1.8"

 

the difference is bokeh, not sharpness. the 1.8 is actually sharper when stopped down, but the 1.4 has better bokeh. the 1.8 focuses fairly close, though not exactly macro-close, but its bokeh has been described as harsh and distracting. still, for $120, the 50/1.8 is the best deal nikon's got going.

[terry foster]

Get the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ED second hand great lens one of the best nikon have made, a tad heavy.

[namnguyen]

How come no one has mentioned the 70 180mm?

No longer available, but may serve the OP well for portrait and macro. You can probably get a used mint for ~ $1200, roughly the same as the 85mm 1.4.

Just remember it's 5.6 and 1:2.