Any photographers here? looking for lens advise please.

13 Jun 2010

I am saving for a macro lens for my Nikon D70s
I am torn between two;
1) Nikkor 105mm f/ ED IF AF-S VR
2) Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro Lens
The Tamron is quite a bit cheaper, but of coarse you loose quality and some function from the Nikkor. I have read many reviews of both but would love to hear any real life experience anyone may have with either of these lenses, or advise you could put forward.

13 Jun 2010

Spect you know the answer yerself really. I have used Tamron for a number of years and they have always been good value and reliable. However if i had the cash id buy the other one :-)
Which hasnt helped at all really has it.

13 Jun 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I am saving for a macro lens for my Nikon D70s
I am torn between two;
1) Nikkor 105mm f/ ED IF AF-S VR
2) Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro Lens
The Tamron is quite a bit cheaper, but of coarse you loose quality and some function from the Nikkor. I have read many reviews of both but would love to hear any real life experience anyone may have with either of these lenses, or advise you could put forward.

Blue usually I have a saying....." buy cheap....buy twice ".
Go for the more expensive one.
Plus I heard through the grapevine you have a few bob, so maybe just buy a whole new camera? wink

13 Jun 2010

Quote by Silk and Big G
Spect you know the answer yerself really. I have used Tamron for a number of years and they have always been good value and reliable. However if i had the cash id buy the other one :-)
Which hasnt helped at all really has it.

Yes you are probably right, thinks

Quote by kentswingers777
I am saving for a macro lens for my Nikon D70s
I am torn between two;
1) Nikkor 105mm f/ ED IF AF-S VR
2) Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP Di Macro Lens
The Tamron is quite a bit cheaper, but of coarse you loose quality and some function from the Nikkor. I have read many reviews of both but would love to hear any real life experience anyone may have with either of these lenses, or advise you could put forward.

Blue usually I have a saying....." buy cheap....buy twice ".
Go for the more expensive one.
Plus I heard through the grapevine you have a few bob, so maybe just buy a whole new camera? wink

:laughabove:
If I could, I would have liked the Nikon D300, super-seeded by the D300s which I am not so keen on

13 Jun 2010

Just to be perverse I'd have gone for the 90mm whatever make or price....I used to have one for my old Contax and used it for almost everything

13 Jun 2010

having spent quite a lot of my working life using TV cameras, i know the difference good glass makes to your picture, but,,,,,,,unless you're a semi pro or frequent user, you need to work out if the extra expense can be justified.
If you really have the spare wedge then go for it, i wish i'd had more funds available when i got my DSLR to have got the IS lenses instead of the standards, as i've found myself doing a lot of full zoom pics so camera shake is sometimes a problem and i can't always use a tripod and remote.
I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses lol

25 Jun 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Just to be perverse I'd have gone for the 90mm whatever make or price....I used to have one for my old Contax and used it for almost everything

Quote by meat2pleaseu
having spent quite a lot of my working life using TV cameras, i know the difference good glass makes to your picture, but,,,,,,,unless you're a semi pro or frequent user, you need to work out if the extra expense can be justified.
If you really have the spare wedge then go for it, i wish i'd had more funds available when i got my DSLR to have got the IS lenses instead of the standards, as i've found myself doing a lot of full zoom pics so camera shake is sometimes a problem and i can't always use a tripod and remote.
I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses

Thanks guys, well I am in no rush so will save a little more and go for the Nikon I think

25 Jun 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Thanks guys, well I am in no rush so will save a little more and go for the Nikon I think

Correct answer.

25 Jun 2010

Quote by meat2pleaseu
I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses

Most definitely!! Having had the opportunity to use the top spec Nikon camera and lenses last year I can see the difference it makes although to most people they just cant see why you would spend that sort of money :lol2:
Always always buy the best quality glass you can blue.... I learnt that lesson very early on and spent a year being very frustrated with the results. I cant tell you how much happier I am now I have upgraded both my camera body and lenses biggrin

25 Jun 2010

Quote by Shireen

I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses

Most definitely!! Having had the opportunity to use the top spec Nikon camera and lenses last year I can see the difference it makes although to most people they just cant see why you would spend that sort of money :lol2:
Always always buy the best quality glass you can blue.... I learnt that lesson very early on and spent a year being very frustrated with the results. I cant tell you how much happier I am now I have upgraded both my camera body and lenses biggrin

This elaborated much more eloquently.

27 Jun 2010

Quote by essex34m

I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses

Most definitely!! Having had the opportunity to use the top spec Nikon camera and lenses last year I can see the difference it makes although to most people they just cant see why you would spend that sort of money :lol2:
Always always buy the best quality glass you can blue.... I learnt that lesson very early on and spent a year being very frustrated with the results. I cant tell you how much happier I am now I have upgraded both my camera body and lenses biggrin

This elaborated much more eloquently.
yeah, but women get more practice talking than us blokes :lol:

28 Jun 2010

Quote by meat2pleaseu

I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses

Most definitely!! Having had the opportunity to use the top spec Nikon camera and lenses last year I can see the difference it makes although to most people they just cant see why you would spend that sort of money :lol2:
Always always buy the best quality glass you can blue.... I learnt that lesson very early on and spent a year being very frustrated with the results. I cant tell you how much happier I am now I have upgraded both my camera body and lenses biggrin

This elaborated much more eloquently.
yeah, but women get more practice talking than us blokes :lol:
Good point, well presented.

28 Jun 2010

Quote by Shireen

I guess theres a reason Paps and top togs can spend £20k+ on some lenses

Most definitely!! Having had the opportunity to use the top spec Nikon camera and lenses last year I can see the difference it makes although to most people they just cant see why you would spend that sort of money :lol2:
Always always buy the best quality glass you can blue.... I learnt that lesson very early on and spent a year being very frustrated with the results. I cant tell you how much happier I am now I have upgraded both my camera body and lenses biggrin

Thank you
And thanks ever body for your input

29 Jun 2010

Personally I would go for the Tamron lens for two reasons. One I like Tamron's lenses they are affordable, produce good picutre quality and they are dependable. Second I tend to be a bit old school when it comes to lenses. Meaning, I prefer to stick as close to the normal lens range of 50 mm becaue the further you go out the more picture distortion you get. When you are talkng about telephoto this results in a "flattening" of the image. I realize the difference in the lens length is on 15mm but I still would go the Tamron 90 to preserve picture quality.

10 Jul 2010

Quote by yorkiesmurf
Personally I would go for the Tamron lens for two reasons.

I started off with a Tamron (or Tampax as it has affectionately become known :lol2: ) and it was the biggest mistake I could have made. It is very slow to focus and doesn't always focus where you want it. It has a huge aversion to white in bright light and you end up with the most amazing purple fringing you will ever see :lol2: No amount of compensation will cure it and it was just one of those things that I had to accept but it got to the point where I wouldn't photograph anything white because I knew I would just bin the image anyway.
Having said that I did manage to take one stunning image of a swan with it but that's because it wasn't in direct light.
Now I have my two Canon lenses I don't hesitate to photograph anything and can instantly see the difference in quality. It is definitely worth spending the extra money for the satisfaction you will get when you view your images smile

Oh and Essex and Meaty flipa

:lol2:

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Shireen
Personally I would go for the Tamron lens for two reasons.

I started off with a Tamron (or Tampax as it has affectionately become known :lol2: ) and it was the biggest mistake I could have made. It is very slow to focus and doesn't always focus where you want it. It has a huge aversion to white in bright light and you end up with the most amazing purple fringing you will ever see :lol2: No amount of compensation will cure it and it was just one of those things that I had to accept but it got to the point where I wouldn't photograph anything white because I knew I would just bin the image anyway.
Having said that I did manage to take one stunning image of a swan with it but that's because it wasn't in direct light.
Now I have my two Canon lenses I don't hesitate to photograph anything and can instantly see the difference in quality. It is definitely worth spending the extra money for the satisfaction you will get when you view your images smile

Oh and Essex and Meaty flipa

:lol2:
As one of my reasons for this lens is to take some close up pics of small bugs I would like a lens that will focus quickly rather than me having to do it if possible.

10 Jul 2010

i've recently done some shots of spiders, and not having a proper macro lens, found that using a 200-300 tele lens and standing furthe back gave me really nice results. the depth of field was quite shallow so i had a nice focused spider and soft backgrounds.

10 Jul 2010

Quote by meat2pleaseu
i've recently done some shots of spiders, and not having a proper macro lens, found that using a 200-300 tele lens and standing furthe back gave me really nice results. the depth of field was quite shallow so i had a nice focused spider and soft backgrounds.

Yes, this is basically what I have been doing up until now using Sigma 70-300mm. Looking to improve shots and the focus is so slow I have to do it myself.

10 Jul 2010

I'd have to agree that you get what you pay for, the more expensive lenses tend to be faster and give better results, I purchased a Canon 450D and went for the EFS 18-200mm lens.
I was interested in taking some Macro shots but didn't want to spend money on something that I wasn't going to make much use of, so rather than go the whole hog I've just purchased a conversion lens, pretty cheap but fiddly, it may be a better way to go if you're only going to do a bit of Macro or just want something to play with,

24 Jul 2010

I've got the Canon 50D and my macro lens is the EFS60mm lens...and its the mutts....

I agree that you get what you pay for, so always go for the best lens that you can possibly afford.

24 Jul 2010

Great pics kittysin.

Quote by kittysin
I've got the Canon 50D and my macro lens is the EFS60mm lens...and its the mutts....

I also have a superb ring flash which is a brilliant bit of kit.
I've also messed about with my Tamron 70-300 zoom lens on the macro setting which can come up with some good results.

I agree that you get what you pay for, so always go for the best lens that you can possibly afford.