![]() |
|
|||||||
| General, Reviews, Tech Talk Share tips & tricks, techniques, general photography chat. |
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 |
|
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21
|
I was thinking of getting one of those 70-200 2.8 lenses (Nikon) and now deciding between Nikon's VR and Sigma's Macro
Nikon's VR more expensive, but it's got VR... Sigma's Macro seems like an interesting idea, especially when coupled with a teleconverter... so my question is to those who use either, is the VR that useful? and is the Macro any good? i'm thinking if i shoot any form of sports i'm going to need a high shutter speed, and i don't see myself shooting anything particularly slow at such a zoom. and i can see myself at least starting to try macro photography |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Northerner
Posts: 3,966
|
VR useful ? Yes especially at the more telephoto end or in dimmer lightings
Never used the 70-200 macro but i would rather get a dedicated macro lens such as the Nikon 105 or the Tamron 90 * BTW if you really want to have one lens do it all, the Nikon 70-200mm VR becomes a decent macro when u slap a say Canon 500D close up filter Ryan |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: LA 2019
Posts: 1,292
|
getting a cheapo monopod will give you the same result as a VR. so get the macro.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Account Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 539
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: East
Posts: 10,962
|
With a 2x TC, you get a 140-400mm, but you dun get any enlargement in reproduction ratio or any reduction in focusing distance. You may need a close-up filter or an extension tube to achieve this rather. Do think about these points and check out more on the pictures from these 2 lenses before you get it. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|