Macro and Telephoto lens opinions

[dana_fry]

<p>I have a Nikon D5100 and I'm looking to eventually get a few more lenses for it, right now I just have two lenses - the one it came with (18-55mm) and a 50-200 mm. I'm interested in both a macro lens and a telephoto lens, and hence I wanted to ask people who have more knowledge about lenses. I'm looking for ones that aren't too wildly expensive if possible.<br>

As an example of what I'm looking to use them for, the telephoto one I'd like to use in say a horse show, so a close-up of a particular horse and rider on the other side of the ring, or taking shots of friend's jet skiing from shore when they're a fair distance out. The Macro is honestly just about anything, but I would love to try my hand at photographing eyes at least a few times, so if you know it can take well detailed shots of irises (and lots of other things, of course), that's a huge bonus for me.</p>

<p>And it doesn't have to be just those two types specifically, you guys can totally toss up your opinion on other kinds of lenses too, since I'm more than willing to learn other people's thoughts on those, since I'm not extremely well versed in lenses (among other things) for lack of conversation about said things.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>From personal use I can recommend two Tamron lenses that would fit the bill.<br /> For macro the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 lens is hard to beat. There's a VC (Vibration Control) version out now that will help if you're not prepared to use a tripod - although I'd strongly recommend one for macro work.</p>

<p>As a telephoto option the Tamron SP VC 70-300mm f/4 ~ 5.6 is great value for money and delivers very good image quality. Going much longer than 300mm on a DX camera takes you into super-telephoto territory and you need extremely good technique and a robust tripod to make the best of any longer lens. 300mm should be long enough for what you've described though, as long as your jet-skiing pests, err sorry, friends, don't venture too far from shore!</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>You already have a telephoto lens -- the 50-200. On a DX camera like the 5100, 200mm gives you the same field of view as 300mm on a full frame camera. Not sure how large a horse show ring is but that should be adequate. As for jet skiing "a fair distance out" you need something really long like a 500-600mm but that's likely more lens than a beginner can handle both in terms of focusing and framing on a fast moving object. Better to shoot from a boat or get your friend to come closer to the shore.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Dana. It depends what you call "not too wildly expensive". In the "only <i>moderately</i> expensive" bracket, the 300mm f/4 AF-S (the older version without VR is cheaper) is extremely good optically and also works at quite close focus distances. It's popular with people shooting dragonflies and butterflies because it can fill the frame from far enough away not to scare them. It's not a true macro lens, in that it won't quite fill the frame with a tiny subject as well as a proper macro will, but it's worth a look. However, it's not a zoom lens, so it's just the one length (unless you also consider a TC-14E teleconverter for it). That length is quite a lot longer than your existing 55-200mm, however.<br />

<br />

The "right" lens for your horse cases is probably the 80-400mm AF-S, but that really is expensive. Rodeo Joe's suggestion of the 70-300mm Tamron (or the Nikon version) is pretty solid when it comes to price/performance.<br />

<br />

I'll second the original Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro (the non-VC version is very good - but make sure you've got the one with an integrated focus motor). The one with VC is even better, but much more expensive. It's worth having some working distance for most macro shots - something like a 40mm macro is cheaper, and will still let you fill the frame, but the lens will be very close to the thing you're shooting and that can make it hard to light the subject. 90mm is a good compromise; if you can afford it, I recommend the 150mm Sigma macro.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Hi Dana - before you go down the rabbit hole of purchasing gear before you really know what you want, give your existing gear a try. You mentioned horse shows -- do you mean dressage and those kinds of events? Do you go to a few of them? Do you know the people people that produce or stage the events? If you have an inside connection, use it. Get as close to the action as possible and find an unobstructed well-lit view. If you can do that, then the photography becomes so much easier. In any event photography, up-close, unobstructed and well-lit ALWAYS trumps gear.<br /> <br /> Having said that, your challenges will be distance, lighting and speed of action. All three challenges can be somewhat mitigated by gear, but as I has stated above, the first two can be mitigated in other ways. As for speed of action, a camera body with a fast AF and the fastest AFS lens would certainly be a boon, but if you are familiar enough with horse shows, you would know that there are certain lulls in the action, and even during the action, there are movements that are more easily 'frozen' than others.</p>

<p>Your gear may just be good enough for horse shows, depending on how close you can get and depending on the arena lighting (if it's indoors). Taking shots of friends jet skiing when they are off shore will require longer lenses. Try that out first to see if it works for you. As for other types of photography, they require not only other types of lenses but other gear as well. For example, macro photography is not just about the lens but lighting, a tripod and understanding depth of field.</p>

<p><br /> In any case, here's an example of a photo I took at a different kind of horse show. As you can see, even with a combination of trying to get to a good location, good lighting and reasonably good gear, it was still a very difficult and not a highly successful shot... but for me, it was good enough. I know what would have made it better (yes, it would have been a very expensive lens).<br /> <img src="http://www.leonin.net/img/s7/v168/p632101437-4.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="536" /></p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Check what you need by yourself; with your 200mm (and your subject at more than say, 15meters to avoid any "focus breath"), check what you want to have in frame. If you want your subject doubled in size into the viewfinder, you`ll need a 400mm lens (2x200mm). If you want it to be 3x, you`ll need a 600mm lens (3x200mm). <br /> As mentioned, long lenses have its own "issues". They get slower in the maximum aperture, harder to use hand held, more difficult to focus. So you may prefer to find a good compromise between focal length and the way you use it. In my experience, from the boat a 200mm in DX is fine to catch the skier.</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>Rodeo photo - "I know what would have made it better (yes, it would have been a very expensive lens)."<br /> <br /> Sorry to be so harsh, but no lens known to man would make that posted shot better. It is out of focus and out of focus with a great lens is still out of focus. Seems pretty obvious that the shot is not focused due to a too slow shutter speed and a great lens will not necessarily cure that, unless the extra couple of stops of speed you get by shooting at say 2.8 bumps up the shutter speed enough to where it is sufficient to stop a moving subject. Not clear what aperture you were shooting at in this photo, but the motion blur looks bad enough to NOT be cured by a 2.8 lens. Would love to have seen that shot had you cranked up the ISO to say 1/1000 or higher. Yes - it would be "noisy", but I will take a sharp noisy shot anyday over a smooth out of focus shot.<br /> </p>

<p>Just looked again at the shot and not only is ther serious motion blur due to too slow a shutter speed, but it looks like you were shooting whatever lens you were using wide open based on the background bokeh. Of course had you stopped down to improve the depth of field between cowboys, horses and sterr, your shutter speed would have dropped as well. I see no cure to your problem other than faster shutter speed.</p>

<p> Just out of curiosity, were you using continuous focus on the camera? If not, that too may have contributed greatly to the lack of sharpness. </p>

[andrew_powers]

<p>I have the D5100 & use it with the Tamron 70-300, mostly satisfied, plus it does have macro on it. I shoot flowers with it and get some great results. Also use it for some bird shots, and stopped down some, the results are also good. Good value for the money.<br>

Andy</p>

[photo_galleries]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems pretty obvious that the shot is not focused due to a too slow shutter speed </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Actually, the problem was because the shutter speed was too slow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and a great lens will not necessarily cure that, unless the extra couple of stops of speed you get by shooting at say 2.8 bumps up the shutter speed enough to where it is sufficient to stop a moving subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly what I meant. I was shooting a 70-200mm/2.8 v1 with a TC 1.4X wide open, so IMO, a longer lens that would have allowed the same reach without the TC would have allowed me to shoot at f2.8 and as you said, would have bumped up the shutter speed. <br /><br /><br>

</p>

 

[Jerry_]

<p>Nikon's AF-S 40mm f2.8G DX Micro-Nikkor lens is a good start for your D5100. You need a lens that has AF-S capability, for your camera to auto-focus. Plus, it is not in the *expensive* category.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Can you put up some example photos of photos made with your 55-200 where you aren't satisfied with the results? It could help a lot understanding what you'd need; some recommend a 300mm lens and while that certainly gives you more 'reach', the difference isn't day and night. But, more than 300mm focal length, and prices go up like crazy, so the right answer might be to learn somehow to get more effective use of the 55-200 you already own.<br>

For macro, it depends a lot; the 40mm mentioned is certainly cheap and nice, but you need to be quite close to the subject (far from ideal with living animals). The 90mm is a great option, but with flowers (for example) I find these lenses to give too little 'surrounding', and a wider lens would suit better. In the short term, I'd look instead for a Canon 500 macro diopter, a screw-in filter you can put on your 55-200 which allows it to focus a lot closer and get more macro abilities. It'll help you figure out which focal length(s) are most usable for you.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>To shoot Equestrian events well you need fairly specialized equipment. I use a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 because that focal length gives me the flexibility I need to cover most venues. The camera body is as important and that is why I use a D4. The high frame rate is not as important as the robust build and the over all responsiveness of the camera. For the horse show if you are shooting in bright sun I think the 50-200 might work okay as long as the horses are not moving fast.<br>

For macro work I like a lens with a little more working distance and that would be why I recommend the something like the 60mm f/2.8 Micro or the Tamron 90mm. Both of these are fine lenses </p>

[nigel_farmer]

<p>What sort of horse show? I have shot three day eventing where you can get fairly close to the horses particularly during the cross country and have used a variety of lenses on DX including 35mm, 16-85mm, 10-20mm, 70-300mm and 70-200mm. your 50-200mm fits in this range too.<br>

I have shot 2 or 3 such events with a D7100 and the autofocus is great with a high percentange of shots in focus. The events I have photographed have been outdoors in good light. Indoors would probably require different kit with faster lenses, but then Im just an amateur so probably would not go to such an event.</p>

[heimbrandt]

<p>My thoughts, as someone who occasionaly photographs dressage, show jumping and cross country, is that "robust build" has never been an issue (unless you plan to fend of the horse with your camera). Weather sealing is a plus though, if you are not always indoors.</p>

<p>Seriously, I use just about any focal lenght from 10-300 with my D7000 for horse shows. In his reply to this thread, Michael Bradtke wrote that he uses 120-300 on his D4. That is the exact same reach as you get with your 55-200 on your D5100. It begs the question, how close to the action do you get? One piece of, maybe obvious, advice is to walk around the arena and not try to cover all the action from one single spot. The best way to get good shots of action on the far side of the arena is to first walk on over there.</p>

<p>I use the Nikon 18-105 VR for video, but for dressage and show jumping it is a bit short if I cannot stand close to the middle of the arena's long side. The Nikon 18-140 VR would be excellent. The Nikon 55-300 VR works for stills (and video in larger arenas), but you will find yourself using the camera's high end of the ISO range unless you are outdoors or in a very well lit arena. The Nikon 70-300 VR has better AF, since you can manually override it if it's AF starts to hunt in the wrong direction. That cannot be done with the 55-300 VR, but then its 15 mm on the wide end can be important.</p>

<p>Regarding macro work and what you might need to start, I am completely with Wouter Willemse on his recommendation to get a plus diopter screw-in filter for your 55-200 lens. Canon makes good ones. Hoya have alternatives, but stay clear off the cheapest stuff. A quality close-up screw-in filter is an excellent way to start and it gives you a feel for macro work. If you like it, by all means get a proper macro lens. I have the AF-S 40/2.8 but seldom use it for pure macro work. While it is cheap, you get very close to your subject, which sometimes is a problem. I agree with what has been said about the use of 85-105 mm focal lenghts. Tamron's macro lenses have a well earned good reputation. Nikon does have a 85/3.5 VR macro lens that does AF with your camera.</p>