Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

  1. #21

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    although these 2 lens cant be directly compared, but if in time to come, u can save up to buy both, then, they may be all u ever need.

  2. #22

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by attap seed View Post
    although these 2 lens cant be directly compared, but if in time to come, u can save up to buy both, then, they may be all u ever need.
    hi, my friend just gave me idea. he said, why dont i just get 70-300mm instead of 18-200mm vr.

    what you think about this??? since i already have 18-55mm

  3. #23

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    its good to consider all possible alternatives before commiting.

    the 18-200 is a gereral purpose lens, covering wide to tele.

    the 70-300 is a tele zoom.

    perhaps u should go back to the very core of the question.

    what (subject) is your true love?

    then, the answer will come naturally.

    for example, last time when i first started (135 film format), i ve lots of lens, 16 mm fisheye, 20-35, 28-70, 100micro, 80-200, 2x tele converter.

    but now, my focus is general street photography. nothin fanciful. jus plain record shots.

    i ve the 18-55 kit lens and the 12-24 (almost always in the dry cabi ).

    the 18-55 is used most often.

    some may complain that its slow etc, but the small size makes me inconspicious.

    whenever i see ppl carry the 18-55 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8, i will always exclaim, "wat a monster!!!".

  4. #24

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    For a 70-300mm. you will be caught off guard if suddenly you want to take slightly wider angle of nearer objects. The 70 - 300mm is longer than the 18-200mm and if you want to travel light 18 to 200mm covers wide to zoom. 70 to 300mm would mean you have to carry another lens to cover wide angle. If you are using a D60 and D40, if i remember correctly, you can't autofocus with the 70-300mm.

    You cant compare the N105mm with the 18-200mm VR. Both serve different purpose. The 18 to 200mm cant perform marco shots equal to the 105mm. Since you have only one kit lens. I suggest the 18 to 200 mm VR. I just bought a 105mm excellent. But i dont see myself using it everyday, unless you are a hardcore macro guy.

  5. #25

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by powerbookg4 View Post
    For a 70-300mm. you will be caught off guard if suddenly you want to take slightly wider angle of nearer objects. The 70 - 300mm is longer than the 18-200mm and if you want to travel light 18 to 200mm covers wide to zoom. 70 to 300mm would mean you have to carry another lens to cover wide angle. If you are using a D60 and D40, if i remember correctly, you can't autofocus with the 70-300mm.

    You cant compare the N105mm with the 18-200mm VR. Both serve different purpose. The 18 to 200mm cant perform marco shots equal to the 105mm. Since you have only one kit lens. I suggest the 18 to 200 mm VR. I just bought a 105mm excellent. But i dont see myself using it everyday, unless you are a hardcore macro guy.

    woww, thanks buddy. hey so u just bought the 105mm??

    heylet me ask you this. how is it compared other macro lens like tamron or sigma???

    70-300mm cant autofocus, r u for real??

    do you think 105mm worth the price?? its expensive compared to tamron or sigma macro lens.

  6. #26
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    One question you also want to consider is, how high reproduction ratio do you want? If you need a high ratio (what are you shooting anyway) , then maybe the 105 is for you. But other than macro, its other uses are limited. So you'll also want to consider whether macro is the onyl thing you want to shoot?

  7. #27

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    woww, thanks buddy. hey so u just bought the 105mm??

    heylet me ask you this. how is it compared other macro lens like tamron or sigma???

    70-300mm cant autofocus, r u for real??

    do you think 105mm worth the price?? its expensive compared to tamron or sigma macro lens.
    Justify the price by using it. First of all the macro lens is a fixed lens, the versetility is rubbish when compared to a 18-200mm or a zoom lens, but the optical quality is better, especially for macro. If you want convieneince then the 18-200mm is good, the 70-300 WILL autofocus on the D40 since it is AF-S. The 70-300 can be for sports, wildlife, etc. If you think the 18-55mm is good enough for decent closeup (not anywhere close to 1:1) then go for the 18-200mm, if not, go for a sigma HSM macro lens or the 105mm VR. If you are absolutely happy with what the kit lens gives you, then you wouldn't really see the difference with the 105mm macro. Sigma is cheaper and better alternative, but if you're really picky about image quality, the 105mm is best of all the lenses (that you listed) . I use my 105mm for macro and portraits but sometimes i find it too tight for everyday photography, so if you do plan to use it to walk about and snap its not exactly great.

    Put your money to good use. If you plan to spend $1250 on a macro lens you might not use all the time then maybe list out what you prefer to shoot or whether you could get the AF-S 60mm (nikkor) or a sigma 70mm or 150mm.

  8. #28

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    i will research that tamron 90mm, but i wanna ask u this, is 105mm vr an excellent lens??? what u think?
    looks like you have got some good recommendations from some of the pros in CS already.

    just to ans to your question. I owned a 105mm before but sold it since I moved away from macro...to me, it is a very good lens but not excellent as it is not very versatile, IQ is very good, even for portrait too.

    imho, it is hard to say which lens is best, the guy behind the camera is the one that really makes the difference in photog....good luck choosing....

  9. #29
    Senior Member Leong23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    within myself
    Posts
    3,186

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    TS think you should hold on to your buy and think what type of photo you want to focus on instead swaying to different type of lenses recommended by your friends.

    18-200, 70-300 and 105VR is generally for different purpose.

  10. #30

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    woww, thanks buddy. hey so u just bought the 105mm??

    heylet me ask you this. how is it compared other macro lens like tamron or sigma???

    70-300mm cant autofocus, r u for real??

    do you think 105mm worth the price?? its expensive compared to tamron or sigma macro lens.
    why don't you go read up the more accurate reviews of these lenses instead of asking the same question 10 times? And no, Ken Rockwell does not count as a professional reviewer.
    Alpha

  11. #31
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    woww, thanks buddy. hey so u just bought the 105mm??

    heylet me ask you this. how is it compared other macro lens like tamron or sigma???

    70-300mm cant autofocus, r u for real??

    do you think 105mm worth the price?? its expensive compared to tamron or sigma macro lens.
    Only 1 of the 70-300 can work with D40 and D60 autofocus at the moment... that's the AF-S version. If you get any other ones, then you'd have to MF with it...
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  12. #32
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    This statement should be well heeded - using a fixed lens for macro work is not an easy affair. Unless you require high reproduction ratio (see my post above), you may be better off with the 18-200 for ease of use. Judging from your posts to date, it does appear that you're a beginner.

    Quote Originally Posted by asdfg View Post
    Justify the price by using it. First of all the macro lens is a fixed lens, the versetility is rubbish when compared to a 18-200mm or a zoom lens, but the optical quality is better, especially for macro. If you want convieneince then the 18-200mm is good, the 70-300 WILL autofocus on the D40 since it is AF-S. The 70-300 can be for sports, wildlife, etc. If you think the 18-55mm is good enough for decent closeup (not anywhere close to 1:1) then go for the 18-200mm, if not, go for a sigma HSM macro lens or the 105mm VR. If you are absolutely happy with what the kit lens gives you, then you wouldn't really see the difference with the 105mm macro. Sigma is cheaper and better alternative, but if you're really picky about image quality, the 105mm is best of all the lenses (that you listed) . I use my 105mm for macro and portraits but sometimes i find it too tight for everyday photography, so if you do plan to use it to walk about and snap its not exactly great.

    Put your money to good use. If you plan to spend $1250 on a macro lens you might not use all the time then maybe list out what you prefer to shoot or whether you could get the AF-S 60mm (nikkor) or a sigma 70mm or 150mm.

  13. #33
    Member/Tangshooter Redsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    7,932

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    do bear in mind that if you get the 105VR your shooting options will be limited to marco work and er...tele i guess
    since you already have the 18-55,you do not really need a 18-200 as it would render your 18-55 obsolete imho.
    If you want to go into marco,105VR is good
    if not,maybe you can consider the 70-300VR then

  14. #34

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    looks like u cant decide anytime soon.

    why not forget about buying anything for the time being.

    take time to shoot w your kit lens.

    maybe u will fall in love w it.

  15. #35

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by attap seed View Post
    looks like u cant decide anytime soon.

    why not forget about buying anything for the time being.

    take time to shoot w your kit lens.

    maybe u will fall in love w it.
    yeah, i am confused of which one should i get. but i think i will get macro. its totally different lens.

    while 18-200 is just the same lens with 18-55, just with more zoom

  16. #36

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    yeah, i am confused of which one should i get. but i think i will get macro. its totally different lens.

    while 18-200 is just the same lens with 18-55, just with more zoom
    Since TS is interested in Macro, can he buy the 18-200 and get a macro converter? Best of both worlds?

    Sorry, I am new to this, so I am just asking around.....

  17. #37
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Quote Originally Posted by markwee View Post
    Since TS is interested in Macro, can he buy the 18-200 and get a macro converter? Best of both worlds?

    Sorry, I am new to this, so I am just asking around.....
    Bad picture quality...
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  18. #38

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Hi, so it is possible to hook up a macro converter for 18-200? Btw, how bad is the picture quality?

  19. #39
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    Depends on your tolerance level, but I think extension tubes should give u a good enough result?

  20. #40

    Default Re: nikon 18-200mm VR vs nikon 105mm macro lens VR???

    OT a bit. Not sure what you meant by using extension tubes?

    Are you trying to say that first put on the extension tube, macro converter then 18-200 lens?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •