Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 70-200 VR or 70-200 Macro

  1. #1

    Default 70-200 VR or 70-200 Macro

    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. #2
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: 70-200 VR or 70-200 Macro

    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. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    LA 2019
    Posts
    1,282

    Default Re: 70-200 VR or 70-200 Macro

    getting a cheapo monopod will give you the same result as a VR. so get the macro.

  4. #4

    Default Re: 70-200 VR or 70-200 Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by advrider View Post
    getting a cheapo monopod will give you the same result as a VR. so get the macro.
    but one cannot carry a monopod all the time right...a true macro lens is prefered

  5. #5
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: 70-200 VR or 70-200 Macro

    Quote Originally Posted by theislandofdreams View Post
    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
    The VR is good if you need to handhold. And there's a price difference to these 2 lenses, choose one that you'll need carefully. The Sigma's macro is not a true macro, i.e. the reproduction ratio is not 1:1, it about 1:3.5

    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.
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •