[Guest]

The 70-300VR from Nikon is a really excelent lense for the money, so I am sure Markus would aprove of it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I am personally wondering if you need that much telephoto reach, after all 85mm on DX is already quite tele.

[mst]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283533317' post='2468']

Thank you Markus, the D300s with the 16-85 seems to be the way to go for me now. What do you think of a 70-300 to accompany it? vieux loup

[/quote]



Nothing wrong with the 70-300 VR, except there is now a lighter and slightly more affordable DX option, too: the AF-S DX 55-300 VR. However, it's a new lens, I haven't touched one myself, yet.



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283533317' post='2468']

Thank you Markus, the D300s with the 16-85 seems to be the way to go for me now. What do you think of a 70-300 to accompany it? vieux loup

[/quote]

Hi old wolf, while the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR is not really a bad lens, it is not a super lens either, you notice that in the long end. It loses some sharpness and contrast there, and is not totally free from CA.

It does have image stabilization and focusses well.



But I would like to point you to a different lens. Tamron is not really known for super 70-300mm lenses (neither was Nikon for even good ones, before the 70-300mm VR, though), but now they have introduced a quite remarkable lens.

It is sharper than ANYTHING currently on the market in that class, and seems to be totally free from CA. It has efficient image stabilization (Tamron calls that VC) and a silent ring motor (Tamron calls that USD, it is the first Tamron with an USM/AF-S like motor).



It has an expensive special element, which gives it VERY impressive optical qualities. The MTF curves (which show how a lens will behave sharpness and contrast wise) and unbelievably good (much better than current comparable lenses, including the Nikon 70-300 VR).



People who have compared one next to the Nikon say its image stabilization is far superior than that of the Nikon at 300mm, and that sharpness and contrast are also quite superior from the Nikon.



It is Tamron's 50th anniversary, and this rightfully is their anniversary lens.



Here are the MTF curves for this lens, and two straight out of the camera shots at 300mm. They look super, for such a 70-300mm consumer lens.



http://www.tamron-usa.com/A005special/lineup/a005/mtf.html



If I was you (or should I say, if you were me) I would pair that Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX with the Tamron SP 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di VC USD, the new top lens in this segment of the lens market.

[Steinar1]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283594728' post='2478']

Hi old wolf, while the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR is not really a bad lens, it is not a super lens either, you notice that in the long end. It loses some sharpness and contrast there, and is not totally free from CA.

It does have image stabilization and focusses well.



But I would like to point you to a different lens. Tamron is not really known for super 70-300mm lenses (neither was Nikon for even good ones, before the 70-300mm VR, though), but now they have introduced a quite remarkable lens.

It is sharper than ANYTHING currently on the market in that class, and seems to be totally free from CA. It has efficient image stabilization (Tamron calls that VC) and a silent ring motor (Tamron calls that USD, it is the first Tamron with an USM/AF-S like motor).



It has an expensive special element, which gives it VERY impressive optical qualities. The MTF curves (which show how a lens will behave sharpness and contrast wise) and unbelievably good (much better than current comparable lenses, including the Nikon 70-300 VR).



People who have compared one next to the Nikon say its image stabilization is far superior than that of the Nikon at 300mm, and that sharpness and contrast are also quite superior from the Nikon.



It is Tamron's 50th anniversary, and this rightfully is their anniversary lens.



Here are the MTF curves for this lens, and two straight out of the camera shots at 300mm. They look super, for such a 70-300mm consumer lens.



http://www.tamron-usa.com/A005special/lineup/a005/mtf.html



If I was you (or should I say, if you were me) I would pair that Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX with the Tamron SP 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di VC USD, the new top lens in this segment of the lens market.

[/quote]

Thank you Brightcolours for such a good idea. I will certainly check that out and try one. Don't hesitate , if you have other suggestions. I still need to get a good prime/macro and a good flash for this equipment. And, do you or any one else have a good suggestion for a good bag. My old bag is rotten and needs renewal. I hesitate between a backpack (to keep my hands and houlders free) and a shoulder bag. Finally, what do you suggest for memory cards for the D300S? Many thanks in advance for your help. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283603392' post='2479']

Thank you Brightcolours for such a good idea. I will certainly check that out and try one. Don't hesitate , if you have other suggestions. I still need to get a good prime/macro and a good flash for this equipment. And, do you or any one else have a good suggestion for a good bag. My old bag is rotten and needs renewal. I hesitate between a backpack (to keep my hands and houlders free) and a shoulder bag. Finally, what do you suggest for memory cards for the D300S? Many thanks in advance for your help. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

Good macros... there really are no bad macro lenses.



In my view, there are two things that are most important with macro focal length choice:

1. Distance to subject
   
   
2. Field of view
   
   

The longer the focal length, the bigger the distance to the subject for the same magnification. With macro photos of flowers and inanimate objects, that does not really matter. With macro photos of (flying) insects, the distance starts to matter, as the closer you come, the bigger the chance that your subject takes flight.



So, macro lens focal length choice depends on your preference in subject.



Field of view determines the character of the macro photo. A short focal length will give a wider field of view, a longer one a more narrow filed of view.

What your preference may be is also personal.



Personally, I am not very "in love" with the ~50-100mm macro lens category macro lenses, due to the field of view, the last few years (on APS-C). For some reason the results keep on looking generic, uninspired and typical of what one tends to find in forum image posts. I hope that will change this fall, as I would love to love my Tamron 90mm f2.8 again. One never knows...



What I do like on APS-C, for my (semi) macro use, is 24mm, 35mm and 200mm. These focal lengths do something for my photography.

I currently use my Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L at 200mm and with an extension tube for the tele semi macros. I use my Canon 35mm f2 with 12mm extension tube for 35mm 1:2 macros, and I want to buy in future one of the following lenses to also shoot macro at 20-24mm (with 12mm extension tube:

• Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II
  
  
• Canon 24mm f1.4 L USM II
  
  
• Sigma 24mm f1.8 EX DG Macro
  
  

I now use my Tokina 12-24mm f4 at 24mm, but while that gives a very attractive field of view, the optics are not really up to it.



Example for 200mm field of view semi macro:







Example for 35mm (on APS-C making standard focal length, basically) field of view 1:2 macro:



And 35mm panorama stitch 1:2 macro:





Example of 24mm field of view macro:







I hope this illustrates well how the field of view, depending on your focal length choice, influences the character of the macro photos.

What has your preference is something you have to determine.



For wide angle macro, there are no macro lenses available. If you would want that (wide macro), you will have to do so with a 12mm extension tube (which will allow you to focus very close).

My advised lens choices would then be:

• Nikon AF-S 24mm f1.4 G. Very expensive option, obviously.
  
  
• Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II. Very compact pancake design, interesting (but can not vouch for what results in macro will look like IQ wise)
  
  
• Sigma 24mm f1.8 "macro". The safe choice, and a lens that is better than its on-line reputation.
  
  

35mm normal focal length macro lens:

• the to me very impressive Tokina 35mm f2.8 Macro DX. Lovely little macro lens, that also doubles as very nice compact normal prime.
  
  

50-70mm macro lens class:

• Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. Nicely built and VERY sharp macro lens, can double as 70mm f2.8 portrait lens.
  
  

90-105mm macro lens class:

• Tamron Sp 90mm f2.8 Di macro. I rate the ooptics from this lens a bit higher than the other lens in this class, the build quality is a bit lower than the other lens. The MF handling of this lens is superb.
  
  
• Nikon AF-S 105mm f2.8 G VR micro. More expensive, but nice build and gives you VR (not very efficient for macro use, but can come in handy when you want to use this lens class as longer portrait lens at f2.8 and lower light)
  
  

Long macro lens class:

• Tamron SP 180mm f3.5 Di Macro. Great optics, for Tamron actually good build quality, very nice price for a 180mm macro.
  
  
• Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG Macro. Very good build quality, also great optics.
  
  

Those would be my macro lens suggestions, depending on which focal length you would find interesting. But other macro lenses will not disappoint either. As I said before, there basically are no "bad" macro lenses. Some are just a tad more impressive than others.



About bags... I do not have any advice, as I have not found my ideal solution yet either.



Memory cards... unless you see yourself wearing out your camera's shutter with fast frames per second shooting, any card will do.

[Steinar1]

Thank you again Brightcolours for your effort and the (to me) very impressive pics. I can only hope that once I might be able to take pictures like that!!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I will keep your advice in mind when buying a macro lens, that is for sure. I am still leafing through the internet sites and have seen a Nikon 24-85 2,8-4 lens. Any idea how it would combine with a D700? As you can see, I have not quite given up on the D700 yet.

Kindly lupus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283614418' post='2481']

Thank you again Brightcolours for your effort and the (to me) very impressive pics. I can only hope that once I might be able to take pictures like that!!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I will keep your advice in mind when buying a macro lens, that is for sure. I am still leafing through the internet sites and have seen a Nikon 24-85 2,8-4 lens. Any idea how it would combine with a D700? As you can see, I have not quite given up on the D700 yet.

Kindly lupus <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

Well, a 24-85mm f2.8-4 should work ok. You will be able to get more shallow DOF than with the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX.



Field of view wise:

The 16-85mm is a 24-128mm full frame equivalent.



Depth of field wise:

f5.25-8.4 full frame equivalent.



So that is your main win, a quite big shallow DOF advantage.



You lose in focal length range (the long end, which would be covered by the 70-300) and VR.



Personally I would prefer the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM over the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR, because of the constant f2.8 (f4.2 full frame equivalent). Both have a silent ring type motor (AF-S / HSM), both have image stabilization (VR / OS).



On full frame, next to the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4, there is also the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di XR. Also no VR, but a constant f2.8 in a compact and affordable package. Choices, choices, choises!

[Steinar1]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283632022' post='2488']

Well, a 24-85mm f2.8-4 should work ok. You will be able to get more shallow DOF than with the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX.



Field of view wise:

The 16-85mm is a 24-128mm full frame equivalent.



Depth of field wise:

f5.25-8.4 full frame equivalent.



So that is your main win, a quite big shallow DOF advantage.



You lose in focal length range (the long end, which would be covered by the 70-300) and VR.



Personally I would prefer the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM over the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR, because of the constant f2.8 (f4.2 full frame equivalent). Both have a silent ring type motor (AF-S / HSM), both have image stabilization (VR / OS).



On full frame, next to the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4, there is also the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di XR. Also no VR, but a constant f2.8 in a compact and affordable package. Choices, choices, choises!

[/quote]

Thank you again, but very confusing!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Some members of this forum say to stay away from third party suppliers at all cost, because the AF never works really well and you wll never get a sharp picture!!! Who to believe? The reviews of this forum mention the weaknesses of the transstandard lenses, but they say the same things about the OEM lenses. I have no experience with these lenses, but intuition tells me they can't all be bad. DPREVIEWS say some of them are really good. Lens choice is my number one preoccupation and always was. Where do I get a realistic point of view? I don't want to get aa really good body and spoil it with a stupid decision on lenses§ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I need to read all the 6 pages and try to make some sense out of it!!

Kindly, very confused wolf!

[wim]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283633981' post='2489']

Thank you again, but very confusing!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Some members of this forum say to stay away from third party suppliers at all cost, because the AF never works really well and you wll never get a sharp picture!!! Who to believe? The reviews of this forum mention the weaknesses of the transstandard lenses, but they say the same things about the OEM lenses. I have no experience with these lenses, but intuition tells me they can't all be bad. DPREVIEWS say some of them are really good. Lens choice is my number one preoccupation and always was. Where do I get a realistic point of view? I don't want to get aa really good body and spoil it with a stupid decision on lenses§ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I need to read all the 6 pages and try to make some sense out of it!!

Kindly, very confused wolf!

[/quote]

Actually, if you want to get the best out of most lenses, get a D700. 12 MP FF make older (FF, and analog) lenses still look very, very good, better than on APS-C, and you get much more DoF control on FF, which was really what was Brightcolours about. With a Nikon, you get about 1.5 stops of extra DoF (IOW, a minimum amount of DoF that is larger by 1.5 stops, which you can't control as it is built-in) on APS-C, as compared to FF (with Canon that is 1.6X), hence the comparison with a FF lens that would be equivalent for FL and maximum aperture for DoF. As Brightcolour sindicated, an F/2.8 lens on FF would give you the shallow DoF of F/2.8 on FF. whereas F/2.8 on APS-C would give you a DoF equivalent to about F/5 on FF. Thsi si why FF gives you much more DoF control, you still have that extra 1.5 stops to play with.



The only hassle is that you don't get the crop factor on FF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. You can crop yourself, but that way you end up with approx. 5 MP images, if you like, and if that is ok for you, I reckon you're better off with FF.



Of course, the advantage with Nikon is that you can use a DX lens with an FX body, it'll indicate in the VF where the crop actually is, but again, in that case you'll end up with approx. 5 MP images. BTW, I made a few 60 cm X 90 cm prints from an 8MP jpeg image only, which was converted from a heavily overexposed image, and it actually looks very great if you don't come closer than about 2 m (i.e, normal viewing distance). IOW, with a properly exposed 5MP picture you can still make quite large prints, provided you know how to uprez etc.



Here on Photozone, when a lens gets in the "good" category for optical results, you can be sure it is a very good lens in the field and for prints which are not scrutinized at 100 to 200 % <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> (which you don't normally do). The main difference then is all about other characteristics, like price, rendering (bokeh, microcontrast, vignetting, etc.), AF, build, etc. You'll have to decide what is most important to you in that case. For zoom lenses on Nikon I would most probably opt for Nikkor lenses, and maybe a specific Tamron, like macro lenses from Tamron, or from Tokina. Tamron, of the 3rd party manufacturers, probaly comes closest to Nikon in the way the images come out, but Nikkors are probably, in general anyway, best, be it that the Nikkor name and build comes at a price.



As was suggested, with a D300s the best way to start is likely th e16-85 Nikkor and the new Tamron telezoom mentioned, plus any decent macro lens (or even a good prime with extension tubes, something I prefer these days, except with very large magnifications (let's say, > 1.5:1 etc.)



With a D700, I think the new 24-120 F/4 is probably the way to go, and likely the same 70-300, and the same (FF) macro lens. The 24-85 you mentioned, will probably do very nicely on the D700 too. Do note that 24 mm on FF is equivalent to 16 mm on APS-C with Nikon, while 24 mm on APS-C is equivalent to 36 mm on FF. Essentially the main difference between D300s and D700 will be price and reach in favour of D300s, with IQ and DoF control in favour of D700.



I reckon those are really the main points you need to decide upon. Well, for me they would be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283633981' post='2489']

Thank you again, but very confusing!! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Some members of this forum say to stay away from third party suppliers at all cost, because the AF never works really well and you wll never get a sharp picture!!! Who to believe? The reviews of this forum mention the weaknesses of the transstandard lenses, but they say the same things about the OEM lenses. I have no experience with these lenses, but intuition tells me they can't all be bad. DPREVIEWS say some of them are really good. Lens choice is my number one preoccupation and always was. Where do I get a realistic point of view? I don't want to get aa really good body and spoil it with a stupid decision on lenses§ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I need to read all the 6 pages and try to make some sense out of it!!

Kindly, very confused wolf!

[/quote]

Well, a lot of stuff is said on internet... hard to figure out what is what, yes.



Most AF problems with 3rd party suppliers stem from the Canon platform and so-so AF motor/electronics implementations. They varied from body to body too, most notorious being the EOS 350D. Things are improving on the Canon side there too lately, and you have chosen for Nikon, so you should not worry all that much.

Indeed, the lens that is most problematic lately for Nikon seems to be the new Nikon AF-S 24mm f1.4 G, it appears to give some users a lot of focus problems.



From what I have read about the new Tamron 70-300 VC USD, I think that lens may well be a winner. I would certainly get that lens if I were in your position. I may check that lens out in future myself, in fact.



On the macro lens side, I have never heard of real complaints about AF accuracy, from any brand.



You still have to make the full frame or APS-C choice anyway... that is tough enough <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Personally I do like APS-C, for its weight and size (well... my 450D is smaller and lighter than a D300s, of course)... but probably in future I will also get a full frame next to it, as you see from my photography I like to play with DOF and unusual angles. 220 to 24mm macro on full frame.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



If I would put a Nikon kit together for myself right now, I would probably decide on this (taking price and weight into consideration):

APS-C:

Nikon D300s

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM standard zoom

Tamron 70-300mm VC USD tele

Tokina 35mm f2.8 DX macro / standard prime

Extension tube set from Kenko to get the Tamron to focus into (semi) macro ranges.



On full frame:

Nikon D700

Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 standard zoom

Nikon 50mm f1.8 standard prime

Sigma 70mm f2.8 or Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro

Tamron 70-300mm VC USD tele

Extension tube set from Kenko to get the Tamron to focus into (semi) macro ranges.



I'm not a flash photographer, but I guess for flash I would just look at an SB600 from Nikon.