What to do?
May 8, 2012 19:43:26 #
I have a D5000 with a Nikkor 18-200mm lens that is the only lens I have. It is very versitile and I really like it but I read so much about Macro, etc., so I am considering the 105 f2.8. Can I really expect better (clearer & sharper) photos with the 105 f2.8 then I am getting with my 18-200. I am not disappointed with my photos now, I just see others that are better. I also cannot do Macro with my 18-200. Any advice?
May 8, 2012 22:18:57 #
Go get the macro lens. It'll open up a whole new world for you. I have several lenses, but the macro lens is the one that is usually on my camera.
May 8, 2012 22:25:58 #
cspear42 wrote:
As a rule, most prime lenses are sharper than zoom lenses, and the Nikkor 105 is among the sharpest lenses manufactured.I am considering the 105 f2.8. Can I really expect better (clearer & sharper) photos with the 105 f2.8 then I am getting with my 18-200?
Several UHH macro-photographers use Nikkor 105 macro lenses. You can see their set-ups here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-32754-1.html and their results here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html
May 9, 2012 10:05:52 #
Jerry Green
Loc: Huntsville, AL
I also recommend the Nikon 105mm macro and also have the Nikon 200mm macro. I use them on a D3S. They are the best that I have ever used. However, when I want to take a lite weight system on an outing I use a D5100 with the 85mm DX macro which gives me very good photos.
May 9, 2012 10:32:36 #
Sheila
Loc: Arizona or New York
The 105mm Nikon is my go to lens for macro. I started with the 60 mm lens but much prefer the 105 mm. I also use this lens as moderate telephoto on my D300s and D200.
May 9, 2012 10:45:22 #
Not to dissuade you from the 105 f2.8 but do you have any other needs/concerns? Unless you've got money to burn there could be other lenses that would fill the bill for macro as well as low light and zoom as well... just saying it could be worthwhile to really evaluate what your goals and expectations are at this point in time.
May 9, 2012 11:23:31 #
cspear42 wrote:
I have a D5000 with a Nikkor 18-200mm lens that is the only lens I have. It is very versitile and I really like it but I read so much about Macro, etc., so I am considering the 105 f2.8. Can I really expect better (clearer & sharper) photos with the 105 f2.8 then I am getting with my 18-200. I am not disappointed with my photos now, I just see others that are better. I also cannot do Macro with my 18-200. Any advice?
This was taken with a Nikon D3 and the AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105 2.8G
View full screen and you will see reflections in the rain drops.
May 9, 2012 11:26:31 #
Awesome. Could I expect that type of photo using that lens with my D5000 assuming I use the correct settings?
May 9, 2012 11:28:22 #
On the search at the top of this page look up a forum for macro and see what most say about the lens. There will be a specific section from Nikon.
May 9, 2012 11:41:04 #
cspear42 wrote:
Awesome. Could I expect that type of photo using that lens with my D5000 assuming I use the correct settings?
I would think the results should be real close. I also have a D300 3/4 frame and a lot of times the resolution is a bit better with that camera body. Not being familiar with the D5000 I would expect very nice results as it is quite a bit newer than my D300?? Also you may want to rent the lens before you buy and test it your self? This was taken with my D300, same lens. CJ7
May 9, 2012 11:49:24 #
May 9, 2012 14:20:06 #
I have both the 18-200 and the 105. The 105 will be a bit sharper but more important is the close focus distance - the 105 is 1 ft, the 18-200 is 1.6 ft (these distances were taken from the respective manuals) If you wnat a closer focusing diatance get the 60mm, its close focus is .6 ft
May 9, 2012 14:28:56 #
cspear42 wrote:
I have a D5000 with a Nikkor 18-200mm lens that is the only lens I have. It is very versitile and I really like it but I read so much about Macro, etc., so I am considering the 105 f2.8. Can I really expect better (clearer & sharper) photos with the 105 f2.8 then I am getting with my 18-200. I am not disappointed with my photos now, I just see others that are better. I also cannot do Macro with my 18-200. Any advice?
I'm not a Nickonn shooter but are you just saying that your pictures could be better and you are wondering if you should get better glass?
I better lens won't make you something that you aren't if that's what you're wondering.
You took that amazing shot of the pelican on the rail...I remember it was stunning....one of the best I've seen in terms of skill.
Also you've taken others. So..if you want a macro lens...then get it but you're doing great with what you have.
May 9, 2012 15:44:16 #
Thank you rpavich. I really did like those pelican shots. I guess I am my own worst critic and always looking for something to take better photos with. I think I'll keep trying with what I have for now until I'm convinced I need to upgrade. Thank you so very much.
May 9, 2012 16:37:42 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
cspear42 wrote:
. . . I guess I am my own worst critic . . . .
Which is entirely legitimate BUT if you want sharper pics and close-ups, the prime Nikkor will give you significantly better results.
Mind you, so will a manual-focus lens such as the 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 from 25 years ago, or more... I use one on a D70.
Cheers,
R.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.