Advice on lens choice

[Birdy21]

Hi,

I have just joined this group and about to buy a new camera setup. I have pretty well made up my mind that I will buy the Nikon 7100 but I am not sure which lens to purchase. I have been looking at a 18-200 mm lens, which I think might be best for me. I have always liked people photos and flowers and a bit of action photos.
I have looked at a Nikon AF - S DX 18-200mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR11 @ $941 and a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5 -6.3 DC Macro OS HSM Contempory lens @ $399 (online). T
here is obviously a big difference in these two lens (re the price) but I don't know, so I would be grateful if someone could explain in fairly simple language LOL what the difference is as I don't want to jump in and buy the wrong lens.
thanks
Wendy

[MissionMan]

I don't believe you will find something that fits that combination effectively. You can get macro's that will do portraits, but the nature of macro means they will be horrible for sports because they are generally terrible with AF speed.

The broad spread of zoom of something like a 18-200 generally limits the quality of the photos so it will be an average lens across a broad set of areas, but not a good lens in any area.

The combination of what you want is generally quite difficult to achieve. if you want a good sports and portrait lens, it's easy to find in the price range you have with a tamron or sigma 70-200 f/2.8. if you want a good macro lens, it's easy to find and it'll double as a portrait lens as well. Something like the Sigma 105 macro would do that well. But combining the portrait, macro and sports don't combine because the nature of a macro is one that would make the lens extremely slow and unsuitable for sports, much the same as the sports lens would make it unsuitable for macro.

So, in short, I'd decide whether sports and portrait is more important than macro and portrait or visa versa, and then make the call from there.

Hopefully this makes sense.

[J.davis]

Those lens choices are not very well suited for your needs,
Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro will serve you well for both people and flowers,
and a 70-200 f2.8 will get the sports shots on a crop body.
These might be a bit pricey, but, you get what you pay for and you will not be happy with the results of an 'all in one lens', as your shooting and PP start to improve.

[Birdy21]

Thanks John and Missionman,
I guess it is back to rethinking the lens I want to buy! Thanks for your help and suggestions.
Cheers Wendy

[MissionMan]

I have the 90mm Tamron. It's a great lens and pretty reasonable in price for the quality of optics.

The challenge with getting into photography is often trying to cover a broad spectrum of focal length and realistically you don't need to do this.

As an example, my 70-200 spends 80-90% of it's time on my camera for candids and sports so I tend to think this is one of the best investment you could consider. It's a heavy lens but the output quality is incredible. Let me know if you want some comparisons on what the different lenses look like.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Birdy21]

Thanks mission man for your advice. It's gratefully received.
cheers Wendy

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks mission man for your advice. It's gratefully received.
cheers Wendy

[glennb]

Hi,

I have just joined this group and about to buy a new camera setup. I have pretty well made up my mind that I will buy the Nikon 7100 but I am not sure which lens to purchase. I have been looking at a 18-200 mm lens, which I think might be best for me. I have always liked people photos and flowers and a bit of action photos.
I have looked at a Nikon AF - S DX 18-200mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR11 @ $941 and a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5 -6.3 DC Macro OS HSM Contempory lens @ $399 (online). T
here is obviously a big difference in these two lens (re the price) but I don't know, so I would be grateful if someone could explain in fairly simple language LOL what the difference is as I don't want to jump in and buy the wrong lens.
thanks
Wendy

Hi Wendy, Whats your budget and how far away will you be for your action shots? I would recommend looking at a tamron 24-70 2.8 on your camera as it will be cropped 1.5 (36-105mm equivalent to a full frame camera ) and there are some very cheap alternatives for close up shots of flower like extension tubes which you could add that lens that will let you get closer. But if the action shots are distant maybe look at a 70-200 2.8 but then you may need something wider for close up stuff as 70mm (105mm full frame equivalent) might me a bit long.

[Birdy21]

Hi again,

I think my budget is only going to stretch to one lens. Previously I have mainly taken and loved taking people photos. I thought I would have a go at taking some action and flower shots but if I had to choose I think the flowers would be the one I would like to try and refine my people shots. My question to Missionman and John, you both recommended 105mm and 90mm lens. Are you saying it would be better not to get any zoom lens or just that those two lens would be really good choices?
GlennB I haven't really got a budget for the lens (that's dangerous isn't it) but I think at this stage because I haven't any camera gear I am going to only get one lens. You recommended for taking flowers and people the 24-70 lens and said " on your camera as it will be cropped 1.5 (36-105mm equivalent to a full frame camera".
I am embarrassed to say I don't know what that means and I would be grateful if you could explain to me in layman terms what that means . Thanks again all of you.
cheers Wendy

[MissionMan]

When you put a lens on a camera, what you see depends on the camera. A camera like the 7100 has what is called a DX crop so you don't see exactly the same thing you would see on a film camera (or a full frame camera).

If you had to put a picture down on the table and then move the border in by about a quarter, that would be a DX crop. So when you put a 90mm lens on a DX camera and compare it with a full frame or film camera, it will give you a picture which is slightly different, like you've zoomed it in slightly. The DX crop is 1.5x so a 90mm will be like putting a 135mm on a film camera. Depending on the type of photography, this is not a bad thing. For sport as an example, the DX crop makes it seem like you are zooming in closer to the action than a full frame.

Buying a zoom has certain pros and cons. For portraits or macro, having a prime isn't a problem because you can easily move forward or back, but if you intend taking photos of a group of people, the 135mm nature of the 90mm Macro might be too confined. if you already have a 18-55mm kit lens which comes with your camera, this may not be an issue, but if you don't have a lens, you may want to invest in something like a 24-70 or 24-105. Sigma make a very good 24-105 called the Sigma ART lens which will give amazing quality photos. Here is the sigma lens

http://www.photoreview.com.au/review...s-hsm-art-lens

The alternative is a 24-70 Tamron
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...0mm-2p8-vc-usd

The challenge with both of those lenses is they will work well for wide open shots of people but won't be great for macro.

The alternative is to buy a 35mm f/1.8 nikon (about $200-$300 depending on where you buy it) which will give you wide shots and a Tamron 90mm Macro (about $500-$600) which will give you a good depth of field for portraits and a nice macro lens.

Whether you buy the 24-70/24-105 or the 35/90, both are going to cost around a $1000 in combination.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, here are some samples of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro



a macro example (I'm a crap macro photography so ignore photo quality)

[Birdy21]

Thank you so much Missionman,
You explained that very well. I do understand now. I am off to read the reviews and the prices of the lens you suggested. I like the sound of the 24-105 sigma art lens but hmm lets just see the price!!
cheers and thanks again Wendy

- - - Updated - - -

oops! those examples of the Tamron 90mm macro lens have just popped up after I sent that message, missionman. I think I might check that one out too.
cheers Wendy

[Cage]

Hi again,

From reading your various threads it seems you have made up your mind on a camera, a Nikon D7100, and a great choice too, and would like to start off with one lens.

May I humbly suggest the new Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD. It will cover your immediate needs, including shots of flowers and portraits, and will give you the length for long distance shots. If you feel the need for a Macro lens in the future, and I'm talking tiny insects here, Nikon have a 40mm macro lens that can be had for less than $300.00.

Now the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is no lightweight. I don't know how young and fit you are, but I'm an old dude and I can manage it hand-held and the VC (Vibration Compensation) works really well giving no noticeable camera shake. I'm amazed at the clarity of this lens and can't speak highly enough of it.

I've just been through the buying exercise with camera and lens and I'm more than happy to share my experience. Feel free to PM me if you need any help.

[Birdy21]

Thank you everyone for your help and suggestions. Finally decided and brought the Nikon 7100 with a Tamron 24-70 lens. So excited. I will hopefully have it tomorrow. I cannot wait to try it out.
Cheers Wendy

[Cage]

Congratulations.

I also have the 24-70 and am delighted with it as well.

One more sleep then.....

[fillum]

Should be a great combo for you Wendy...

Your response here is good timing. I was just starting a reply (probably very looong) in support (with examples) of the Nikkor 18-200mm (but with some caveats as well), and also why you shouldn't be looking at a 'specialist' lens as your first/only lens. A 24-70mm is a good choice.



Cheers.