mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>Hi, I have a nikon D90, along with a N 70-300 vr and N 35mm 1.8. I am looking for a travel lens that does sharp landscapes, as well as possible macro (I may be dreaming). I didn't want to have to buy a separate lens for macro, but it looks like I may have to, but not sure. Maybe someone can enlighten me? I have been looking at the Nikon 16-85mm as I've read it is sharp on all focal lengths, but isn't good for close ups. I was considering purchasing a macro extension tubes, but not sure how effective those are. Any sigmas good for landscape and macro? I wanted to keep my travel lens down to 3, instead of 4. I also don't want to spend more than $1000 on a lens. Any suggestions?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>I tried an extension tube on the 35mm f1.8 and it gives you almost 1:1 with tube #1. You need automatic tubes to work with this lens as it is a G lens without an aperture ring. Image quality is surprisingly good and comparable to a dedicated macro lens.</p> <p>A one lens solution may be a compromise of quality.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>If you want a really good "lens for landscape" and a good macro, I think you NEED two lenses.</p> <p>For under 1000, you could get a 16-85 (LOVE my similar 18-70) AND a small micro, like the Tokina 35, the Tamron 60 or 90, or something like that. I routinely travel with my 18-70 and an old MF 55mm f3.5. Great combo.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>Oops... edited... I do NOT own a 16-85, but by every account I've seen, it's way better than my 18-70, and I love that lens, so you might be golden with that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>I think the 16-85VR is near perfect for landscapes. Covers an extremely useful range, it's very sharp (well, mine is) and it's not too big to carry around for longer trips either. It's not a cheap lens, but it's good (and as Peter says: better than the 18-70, which I owned before). My second choice here would be the 18-105VR.<br> The 16-85 can focus quite close (0.38m), but it is by no means a macro lens. I would seriously try to see those 2 requirements apart. If you want to go into macro while travelling, maybe better to consider a good macro-diopter to fit on the 70-300VR. It's easier and quicker to use than extension tubes and smaller (as it's like a filter). The good ones do deliver quite respectable results.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>No true macro but the cheap 18-55mm VR kit lens is quite sharp and has close focusing capability. Macro lenses are optimized for near distances, no? If so, landscapes at infinity would be the opposite:( </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>Hmmm... the more I read about the 16-85, the more I want it, even if it means getting a dedicated macro. I may try the extension tubes Elliott mentioned though. I know some places let you rent accessories. I rented the Tokina 90mm macro and loved it, but didn't want to spend another $500.00 on a lens. Decisions, decisions. so much glass, so little time... and money! <br> Thanks for the input guys!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>Hmmm... the more I read about the 16-85, the more I want it, even if it means getting a dedicated macro. I may try the extension tubes Elliott mentioned though. I know some places let you rent accessories. I rented the Tokina 90mm macro and loved it, but didn't want to spend another $500.00 on a lens. Decisions, decisions. so much glass, so little time... and money! <br> Thanks for the input guys!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 <P>Hmmm... the more I read about the 16-85, the more I want it, even if it means getting a dedicated macro. I may try the extension tubes Elliott mentioned though. I know some places let you rent accessories. I rented the Tokina 90mm macro and loved it, but didn't want to spend another $500.00 on a lens. Decisions, decisions. so much glass, so little time... and money! </P> <P>Thanks for the input guys!</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curt wiler Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>I agree with the above - particularly about the 16-85VR being an excellent travel lens, and far superior to the 18-70. (I own both, as well as the larger f/2.8 lenses). However, I would never recommend extension tubes with a short zoom lens like these. Strange things happen with focus and magnification as well as light loss. I would instead recommend one of the Canon or Nikon two-element diopter lenses. I believe Nikon has discontinued theirs (5T, 6T), but the Canon 250D and 500D lenses are approximately equivalent, and a lot cheaper than another lens. All may be available used. Note it is usually possible to use one of these one size smaller than the normal filter size if necessary, since only the central area is being used.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>Mercy, good automatic tubes run about $50 in ABS plastic and about $90 in metal. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>mm Tokina 35mm AT-X M35 PRO DX maybe ??<br> <a href="http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx-m35prodx-a.html">http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx-m35prodx-a.html</a> </p> <p><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=158">http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=158</a></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronb Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>You should look at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC OS. It has good range, image stabilization, and close focus. I had the Nikkor 16-85 and while I liked it, it wasn't significantly better than my old 18-70 so I got rid of it. Don't miss it at all - too slow and expensive for what it gave me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 25, 2011 Author Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>i think I am just going to have to rent another few lenses/accessories. I've read (even on this thread) ppl who love the 18-70, others who don't. Same with the Nikon 16-85 and Sigma 17-70. I've just read that nothing beats the 16-85 for sharpness, especially at the wide end. the bokeh of the Sigma seems to be better, but I'm really not interested in portraits. Would I need that otherwise (aside from macro work)? CPM, the Tokina 35mm looks interesting. Thanks for the link. Why can't they create one lens that does it all flawlessly (for less than $1234298 and less than 50 pounds, of course!) :) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>i own the tokina 35/2.8. besides being the closest-focusing macro i know of, it makes an excellent travel lens--it's actually smaller than the 35/1.8. a longer macro (with the possible exception of the 85 and 105 VRs) would actually not be great for travel, unless you're into lugging tripods around everywhere you go. but the 35 functions as a normal lens, so its a useful focal length. as for sharpness, its sharper than the 35/1.8 @2.8 and stays sharp stopped down, even in the corners, so it would be good for landscapes. 1:2 is easily doable handheld due to the short extension of the lens, though 1:1 gets a bit trickier. the only thing it doesn't do is sub-2.8 apertures. and the price is reasonable, around $300.</p> <p>also, in addition to the 16-85, i would look at the sigma 17-70 OS, which is 1/2 stop faster at the wide and and a full stop faster at the long end. the slow variable aperture is a weak point of the 16-85 IMO, especially at that price.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC OS</p> </blockquote> <p>I second that suggestion - it's all what the Nikon 16-85 should be.</p> <blockquote> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 26, 2011 Author Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>So, is the 17-70 as sharp as the 16-85, even at either end (17 and 70)? I was trying to find a company that rents this lens out, but haven't had any luck. I may have to purchase it and then return it within the allotted time period if I don't like it. I've tried the 16-85 already and really like it, although I would prefer a 2.8 lens. I'm also concerned about compatibility/communication issues with third party lenses. I've read that sometimes with lenses such as Sigma and Tamron, you got an error message ("E") on Nikon body. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_raper1 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>I've owned a couple of the lenses being discussed here; the Nikon 16-85 and the Tokina 35 macro (still do own this one). The 16-85 is a good general purpose lens, very sharp, just not very fast. I took one with me on a grand canyon trip and appreciated its versatility. The only reason I sold it was because it was too slow. The Tokina is a fine macro lens, and a good general purpose lens as well; I have never had any problems with error messages on my D200 body.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 26, 2011 Author Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>I already have a Nikon 35mm 1.8 lens as my fast lens. It's not wide enough for the landscapes I like to do, so I'm looking for something at least 17mm or less. Thanks for the input, Ted!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_baker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>Nikon 18-55VR focuses quite close (1:3.2). Along with the crop factor of your D90, this will be close enough for average sized butterflies, other large insects, most flowers etc. It is a surprisingly good lens optically, and will be fine for many landscape shots. This is what I put on my D7000 when I just want a walk-around with the option of semi-macro.<br> On my D700 I used the Nikon 28-105 AFS for the same purpose. This lens has a macro mode that focuses closer still is optically not bad at all (although not so good as a dedicated macro lens). I think it would work on the D90 but 28mm is not wide enough for many landscape purposes. Unless you stitch, which is worth a thought.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 27, 2011 Author Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>I received the Nikon 85mm macro yesterday, along with the Nikon 18-105mm. I must say that the macro hasn't impressed me as much as the Tamron 90mm. The 18-105mm is pretty sharp, but I don't think as sharp as the 16-85mm, and the wider end of the latter is a bit more appealing. I don't think I will get a dedicated macro at this point. I will be ordering the Kenko or Zeikos extension tubes and play around with those first. Looks like the 16-85 is the leading contender. Not as fast as the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-70, but I have a 35mm 1.8 for that. thanks for your inputs! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_forte2 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 <p>Noone mentioned the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4. It has a very useful macro and is quite sharp as well. The only problem is that sometimes it may not be wide enough. The macro works very well and seems quite sharp.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercy_hernandez2 Posted May 30, 2011 Author Share Posted May 30, 2011 <p>I've read many good things about the 24-85, Leonard, but, as you mentioned, 24 just isn't wide enough for me and I don't want to have to get an extra wide angle lens to compensate for that. I know the more specialized the lens, the better, but I'm not in a position to be purchasing so many lenses at this time. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now