Nikon Lens Lust- advice needed

[Gingerbillc]

Getting a nifty fifty, far from calming my lens lust has fuelled it further. Keep coming back to the 105mm VR 2.8micro, but have also come across the sigma 50-150 2.8 which is cheaper and has good reviews and has zoom range.

My lens lust has been calmed a bit by the decreasing value of the pound, as I was planning a major spend on holiday, also by the £1k+ cost of the theme park tickets I've had to purchase. So trying to keep under the £500 mark.

I currently have 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses and a 50mm F1.8. Which should I go for next, being mainly for portraits, kid photo's etc. although a macro would be nice. Or can you recommend any other fast glass?

Thanks

Bill

[Paulie-W]

The 105 is reportedly a very good portrait lens too. Ask TarMoo, i think he uses his for that as well as macros.

[TarMoo]

Originally Posted by Paulie-W

The 105 is reportedly a very good portrait lens too. Ask TarMoo, i think he uses his for that as well as macros.

Here are a couple of 105vr shots - one portrait and one flower macro. Check out my flickr photostream for more.

I like the 105 for flower shots because you don't need a tripod. The image stabilisation allows hand held images.

As a portrait lens it is very good, but a bit long for indoor shots. The 105vr has a nice bokeh.

[psenior1]

pretty much the same situation I'm in with my D60, I will probably first of all replace my 18-55 and 55-200 with a 18-200 for the better quality and convenience, not sure if to stick with Nikon or try the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM which I have seen good reviews, plus its £100 cheaper...


Problem is I've also got my eye on a 70-300 Nikon VR and I'd like to get a macro lens soon too!

[Gingerbillc]

Both lovely, the flowers not too bad either

Nice to see such lovely bokeh, but will find it hard to justify the spend to SWMBO just for macro, got to be portrait too. I am just about sold on this lens so someone assure me its better than the sigma 50 - 150 hsmII plz!!

Must stop looking up lens reviews as I'm exceeding my budget and skill looking into pro glass 2.8 17-55/28-70 and 70-200VR lenses and not thinking jeez who spends that much but more "ow thats nice".

Originally Posted by psenior1

pretty much the same situation I'm in with my D60, I will probably first of all replace my 18-55 and 55-200 with a 18-200 for the better quality and convenience, not sure if to stick with Nikon or try the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM which I have seen good reviews, plus its £100 cheaper...


Problem is I've also got my eye on a 70-300 Nikon VR and I'd like to get a macro lens soon too!

Now I do not mind at the moment swapping lenses, and the 55-200 has no lens creep. It's the sharper faster glass I'm wanting. From what I've read they are optically the same and people have complained about the 18-200 not reaching the same ( except for K rockwell who apparantly takes his to bed). Now the 70-300 is a different matter, as it's longer and optically as sharp as the pro lenses(so I've read) in well lit conditions.

What we both should do really is get a couple of speedlights strapped to a small portable scaffold that you could wear on your head so we could use flash and keep the cheap lenses.

[Yandros]

Is the Nikon 105VR better than the Sigma 50-150 f2.8? Yes, certainly at 105mm. Significantly less good at the other focal lengths

You've got a 50mm f1.8 now, so you can see how that performs for portraits. Check the bokeh carefully, as the 5 blades tend to create swirly patterns rather than a smooth effect, particularly wide open. Try that, and the 55-200 at 105mm, and see if you those two lengths suit you. For example, I know that for my local zoo, 105mm is superb except for two situations - the big paddocks and the sea lions and penguins, The paddocks need more length, and the tanks need wide angle. I take the 105 and the 18-200VR, and use the 105VR whenever possible. Having had a look at the reviews, the 50-150 is EXTREMELY good, and had very nice bokeh too, so if you come to the conclusion that you need some flexibility, I think the Sigma would be a very sensible choice. I did notice a few comments about the focus being a bit off at times though(at 150mm I think). If you can live with the primes though, 105mm is a lovely and flattering focal length.

Here are a few examples of non macro Nikon 105VR shots. The lion and fennec fox are through glass incidentally, so aren't quite as sharp, and some are at a higher than ideal ISO. At 100 ISO, even wide open, this lens is pretty much as sharp as you can get.

400 ISO f3.2

400 ISO f4.5

400 ISO f4

200 ISO f5.6

100 ISO f3.2

100 ISO f2.8

and finally, since I can't resist the odd macro...
400 ISO f8

As for the 18-200VR (for psenior1), I'm pretty happy with mine. Ignore that zoom creep business - after reading about it on the forums I tested mine, and sure enough it does it. I would never have noticed it if people hadn't told me to worry about it

Kew temperate house, 18mm 400 ISO. 1/10th sec handheld...

It performs pretty close to the claimed 4 stops of VR.

The 18-200VR is going to Rome with us in a couple of weeks, so if you hang on, it'll get the most serious workout yet as a travel lens, and I should have the odd pic or two to show. If you're fancying a 70-300VR, I'd look at the 16-85VR as a companion though, as I find I don't use the long end much when I'm not shooting wildlife. I tend to travel with two lenses only - either the 18-200 and 105VR, or 18-200 and Tokina 12-24 f4, so for me the 18-200 is perfect, as it means I can carry chunky pro glass like the 105VR and still have most focal lengths covered.

[Gingerbillc]

Utterly smashing pictures and outstandingly detailed advice, thankyou.

The lion is what the wife will look like when she finds out how much this is!!

[Smiffy 2]

Originally Posted by Gingerbillc

The lion is what the wife will look like when she finds out how much this is!!

Knock back about 8 pints of Stella and she'll look like one of the young ladies in TarMoo's first piccie

[richard plumb]

IMO its worth considering either the sigma 18-200 OS, or the Nikon equivalent (although the sigma is cheaper). I bought one for my recent holiday in Japan and it was very useful to not have to swap lenses. It also gave me room in my camera bag to take a prime for low light/indoor/portrait stuff when I needed it.

Its a perfect 'disneyland' lens. I'd also argue that it'd give you better quality than your current two kit lenses, so you could actually sell those and keep the 18-200 as your standard walkaround.

[Steve N]

Originally Posted by psenior1

... will probably replace my 18-55 and 55-200 with a 18-200 for the better quality.

I would suggest to Gingerbillc that he goes that route too for the reasons you have given.

One less lens, better quality, fantastic flexibility - if you've got the cash it's a no brainer

[johnaalex]

I'm very happy with my Nikon 18-200 as a "walkabout", but it is only 5.6 at 200mm so maybe not fast enough. For macro I use the Sigma 150 2.8 which can also produce some portrait shots.