Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- From: floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson)
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:40:44 -0900
"James" <jnipperxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
am leaning toward the 18-200 mm zoom, and just buy a separate macro lens as
suggested. And yes, I do like to get closer than 12 inches for some
That makes sense in some circumstance. For example, I
do a lot of field work in the summer along the Arctic
Ocean coast and sometime inland on the tundra. I often
pack a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens and a 2x macro focusing
teleconverter in addition to whatever other lenses.
There is a significant distinction though, in that I am
not hiking for more than a few yards; and the pack
animal is a 4-w ATV.
If I were afoot, I wouldn't even begin to think of using the
same kit. A 1.4x or 2x teleconverter is a great tool for
macro work. An achromatic +3 diopter lens is another really
useful item (and don't even think of using one of the cheap
diopters with a single element).
All of that works well with a "regular" lens. Which is to
say it works better with better lenses... non-zooms are
best and super zooms are worst. The 18-200mm puts you right
in there with "worst".
If you can live without VR, look at the 18-70mm Nikkor. It's
a much much better lens than the 18-200mm.
But still... I would highly advise searching out a used D700
and putting a Tamrom 24-135mm on it, with a 1.4x Kenko TC and
a +3 diopter. It doesn't cost much more, but the difference
in quality will blow you away.
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
- Prev by Date: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Next by Date: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Previous by thread: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)
- Next by thread: Re: Choosing Nikon Lenses (or one zoom ?)