dawn_mckinley

<p>Thanks so much, Edward and Stephen for your detailed insights. You have both given me good advice and recommendations to think about. I really appreciate the time you took to share and educate me!</p>

<p>Happy Holidays! I am getting more serious about my photography and am looking to purchase lighter weight, sturdy tripod legs (4-5 lbs) for macro photography and portraits that will accommodate my current f/2.8 105 mm and f/3.5-5.6 18-200 mm lenses. I also want them to be sturdy enough to hold 300-400 mm lenses as I continue to grow in my photographic pursuits and outdoor adventures. I am keen on carbon fiber but not Gitzo. I am 68" tall and would like a tripod that is comfortable at that height but that also can shoot low to the ground (12" or less"). I am ready to purchase the Really Right Stuff (RRS) BH-55 ball head with the TVC-34L legs (4-70" height, 4 lbs, 50lb capacity). I am aware they are pricey, but I want something that will last for years to come. I don't have much experience using tripods and notice the RRS legs do not come with a center column. How big a deal is that? Does anyone have other setups to recommend given my requirements? I am planning on purchasing before the beginning of the year. Thanks for your time and suggestions!</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their insights. I have learned a lot reading your responses. After much consideration, I got a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 lens. I think it will suit my needs of macro photography as well as giving me a "bonus" half-way decent portrait lens. I was highly swayed in my decision by having the opportunity to test out the lens before buying. I just had fun shooting with it and loved the results. I am also looking forward to trying out its portrait capabilities on my extended family this holiday season!<br> Thanks again,<br> Dawn</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your comments. I ended up renting a 60mm f/2.8G Nikon lens and a Nikon 105mm f/2.8G lens to play with. I also compared to my 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G. Even though the AF worked on all three lenses with my D80, I manually focused and took the same flower shot as close as I could get and still be able to focus. The 105mm f/2.8 was, I think the hands-down winner. It was fun to shoot with and the colors were more vibrant in the same lighting. The only question I have is whether or not the 85mm f/1.4 would be better for my purposes. It was out of stock at the rental store, but I think I may go back and shoot with that before I decide on what to buy.<br> Dawn</p> <div></div>

<p>Thank you all for your comments and suggestions and for pointing me in the right direction. What a great introduction to the forum!<br> I think I will stick with the D80 for now and invest in a macro lens that will give me the immediate results I am looking for with respect to closer shots - without having to lug a tripod around.<br> I do intend to invest in an upgraded camera body in the not-too-distant future and will look to buy a lens with that in mind as well (which is one of the reasons I was looking at the 17-55 lens in the first place). But, I think that for now I should focus on a lens in the 55/60 or 85/90mm f2.8 range.<br> Thanks again,<br> Dawn</p> <p> </p>

<p>I am new to the forum and already have a question. I currently have a seven-year-old D80 with an AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED lens. I love it the camera and the lens. The combination has served me well on trips and around town, but I find myself wanting to get closer to smaller objects than I am currently able to (flowers, insects). I am thinking about upgrading to a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens. I have read here that that lens can be heavy for the D80, and it is pricey. My question is - is this overkill for a D80? Should I be spending money on a lens like this or putting the money into upgrading the camera itself? </p>