chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

I have a Sigma 28-135mm D 1:3.8-5.6 macro lens on my D800. I don't photograph much of the standard stuff photographers usually take (I have a wife who does that on her D850). I find this lens does almost all the photography I want. However I cannot find any replacement from any of the main lens makers and I would like to do so. The Sigma lens didn't get a particularly good review and sometimes a little more light into the lens might be useful, say f4. I haven't said what I photograph but not really relevant in this case. Just something similar, better optics and maybe more light in. The range 28-135mm not really too important but must have macro. Oh and while dreaming VR would be neat. This might be a wish-list lens for me but somebody may have spotted something I haven't.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Well, it won't help with that "light" thing, but my best/favorite walk around lens for some time has been the Nikon 28-200mm AF G. (https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm). You can find them on EBay for not much money and they are tack-sharp, small, and light (12.8 oz vs the 28-300mm at 28oz). Just a thought.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

Hmmm. I lost it on the f stop, I meant to say down to perhaps f2.8 although I guess I could up the iso. However this particular lens doesn't do macro, or at least enough. The Sigma in macro mode focuses down to about 4". One of my uses is photographing small mechanical things maybe 1-2" long. I have a feeling that the Sigma was a oncer and there may not be a modern replacement. Not sure how to check for older lens that might be suitable. But thanks because that might have been close.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I have a bag full of 3 f/2.8 zooms and primes from 16mm to 300mm. Many are AF vs AF-S. I can shoot anything. But my interest is landscapes.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Confused. The "lens does almost all the photography I want" "lens didn't get a particularly good review and sometimes a little more light into the lens might be useful" "what I photograph but not really relevant in this case"


So you were happy with the lens doing a type of photography that is not relevant but a bad review has changed your experience with the lens???

Perhaps you should stop reading reviews.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

Okay. I photo cars, animals, some landscape, people, very small things like the ends of optical fibre cables in the field, stuff for ebay so a little bit of everything and 28-135 pretty much covers it all - almost all the photography I want except it might be useful to go to perhaps 200mm. However I do have access to a full range of lenses that my wife uses so as a general walk-around lens "the lens does almost all the photography I want". Since the lens didn't get a particularly good review and I would like a little more light to photograph under low light conditions and this model is quite a bit older I fancy something a bit newer but can find no equivalent in current lens ranges I wondered whether somebody was aware of a possible replacement. The not particularly good lens review might have some impact on its use for macro photography (but I don't know for sure since I don't have anything to compare it with) so I am wondering if there is something better out there. Some of the macro photography I do could do with some improvement as lighting is very hard. So generally I am mostly happy with what I have but was wondering if there is something a little better out there. Weight and size is not an issue so an 18-300mm would be okay except it doesn't do macro. And I am after a single lens as my wife has the rest. It may well be that nothing exists to match my current lens and I am okay with that but if you don't ask you will never know. That's 5 lines instead of the original 2 and a 1/2 lines. Does it help ?

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

The macro function of that lens is 1:2, not a true macro. If macro shots are more your concern why not get a macro lens. You haven't stated your budget but for less that 400 you should look into the Tokina 100mm f/2.8, problem solved. You'll still have your 28-135 for general purposes.

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

You are possibly right. I guess I need to examine just where I want to use the macro function. So far at home only but left this lens on because it also handles other jobs. If I bought the Tamron macro I would probably then update the 28-135 and suddenly I have two lens to carry around. I am trying to avoid that but maybe I just have to consider it as a possibly. Thanks for the suggestion. Just off to check Tamron.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

You both have a D800 and D850. Based on your need for these camera's why would you need to seek advise on what lens to buy?

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

I inherited the D800 when my wife got the D850 (I also had her D200 and then D700). So it is really her backup camera. We photograph completely different stuff and she doesn't understand why I photograph what I do. To her I supply the support but use the D800 as a tool and play thing. She uses the D850 as an extension of her art. I wasn't so much asking for advice on what to buy but more trying to find a better replacement, or something different, to what I already have. With so much "stuff" available on the internet even though I might think I have seen everything stuff does slip by. And sometimes different viewpoints might make me change mine. Just think how things might have been different if somebody had suggested to designers of the Titanic that maybe icebergs don't just come at you full frontal but might slide along the side of the ship.
As a result of UHH I am tending towards the inevitability of purchasing a separate macro lens because another use for it has come to mind.

jcboy3

Get a faster lens with VR (such as the Nikon 24-120 f/4), and use a quality close-up filter for your "macro" shots (such as the Canon 250D).

chrissybabe Loc: New Zealand

I am thinking I am seeing two lenses here now which I was hoping to avoid. Fortunately my bag does have room for an extra lens.

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

You won't find any zoom that's states macro on it to have true 1:1 macro function nor will they have fast enough apertures. They more or less allow for getting closer to a subject than standard zoom lenses. You could get closer to 1:1 with it using either extension tubes or add on front element lenses but those will affect image quality and the tubes will cause you to loose f stops of light. As the available light you need is of bigger concern a dedicated macro lens of f/2.8 is your best option.

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

Macros are still excellent general photography lenses too, not restricted to macro photos only. Depending on the working distance you need, and remember the closer you get to a subject the thinner you depths of field will be. You'll find macros range from 40mm, 55mm, 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 150mm, 180mm and 200mm.

Nikon1201

I have a Nikon 18-200 , I use this lens 95% of the time.