02-25-2011, 02:36 PM
Thank you for the reply!
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298643687' post='6363']
Sure, the 70-180 is good enough for close up stuff. But so is your 70-200mm VR, your 80-200mm f2.8.[/quote] That's not 70-200, that's just 200mm VR1. I should have said BULKY
I thouht about 150mm Sigma a while ago, I should re-consider that agian.
The most tempting thing about 70-180 is that it is a zoom. So a tele zoom, a macro and a macro zoom. Three in one - and a very good compromise.
Speaking of inexpensive, that is always good, but if I do not pay for a 70-180 more than it is worth, I have a good chance to get my money back (if I ever want it); and I can also sell my 80-200, as I already have fast lenses in that range, -- on a condition that at f/4.5-5.6 70-180 matches 80-200 for picture quality. And it seems that they are close enough.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1298643687' post='6363']
Sure, the 70-180 is good enough for close up stuff. But so is your 70-200mm VR, your 80-200mm f2.8.[/quote] That's not 70-200, that's just 200mm VR1. I should have said BULKY
Quote:Other interesting macro lenses to consider:
The Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. The sharpest lens for full frame you will have, better than the Nikon 60mm.
The SIgma 150mm f2.8 macro. Great lens with silent and "fast" (for a macro lens) AF.
The Tamron 180mm f3.5. Great optics and not the weight of the Nikon.
I thouht about 150mm Sigma a while ago, I should re-consider that agian.
The most tempting thing about 70-180 is that it is a zoom. So a tele zoom, a macro and a macro zoom. Three in one - and a very good compromise.
Speaking of inexpensive, that is always good, but if I do not pay for a 70-180 more than it is worth, I have a good chance to get my money back (if I ever want it); and I can also sell my 80-200, as I already have fast lenses in that range, -- on a condition that at f/4.5-5.6 70-180 matches 80-200 for picture quality. And it seems that they are close enough.