advice request

basflt

i consider buying a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
its for my D7000

is it worth it , or do you recommend others ?

my goal is dragonfly's and butterfly's ,
but ,
i want to get rid of the limitations of prime [ 105mm Macro lens ]
,,,more freedom , as so to speak ,,,


thanks in advance

Art Scott

I would really suggest looking into Sigma or Tamron lenses: for years and years I have used Sigma {70-200f2.8 (210 in older models) } and this was one of my reasons....the ability to close focus , not true macro, but I could normally get close enuff to fill the frame with my subject, whether it be a diamond on a wedding ring or an insect at the Botanical Gardens.......I hate the 4 to 6 feet of distance I have with my Nikon lenses...just friggin hate it.

basflt

thanks Art
i ll take in account

-- according to specs , it says minimum distance is 2 feet --

i 'll await more opinion before i decide

puzzledpaul

One of the early 'close focus' setups I used with my first Dslr (D30 Canon) was a 100-300 f5.6L lens + extension tubes.

A fairly unweildy rig - as it didn't have a tripod ring/mount - so I ended up mounting the whole lot on a macro rail with a (sliding) front support, all triopd mounted.

I could then set up in a place where butterflies were active and 'follow them around' using the zoom+mf. Not ideal in many ways - but once used to it, I could get pics that (at the time) I thought were half reasonable

I've no idea about the IQ produced by the lens you mention - but I suspect there's better choices for 'close up' work that might be more suited ... and still provide some 'flexibility'.

Wouldn't a 70 - 200 or a 300(f4) + tubes be worth considering (have seen various BF pics where 300s + tubes have been used)

Having f 5.6 at the top end (esp. for nat. light shots) I'd have thought was a bit limiting if you have a choice (I found it so sometimes - but t'was the only lens I had at the time)

pp_

ThatCanonGuy

Generally, superzooms like the 28-300, 18-200, etc. aren't the best choice. In order to get the zoom range that they have, they sacrifice image quality. Usually a 3x zoom ratio gives the best results wrt image quality. 24-70, 70-200, etc. are about 3x zoom.

What is limiting about your 105mm? If it's the inability to zoom, then maybe a 70-200 would be good for you. This photo was taken with my 70-200, which mas a min focus distance of 4 ft.: http://www.trentphoto.net/Nature/flowers/15798333_PpTTm#1406433373_Vx8B6MK

That flower is pretty close to the size of a butterfly. I'd say that Sigma 70-200 Art recommended sounds pretty good.

zoomer

Depends on your quality standard. 28-300 will not provide tack sharp images of those subjects at the large apertures you will want to use.

Look at used 80-200 2.8 with an 1.4 extender. Or 70-200 2.8 with extender.

Sigma 150 2.8 Macro might be perfect also. Tack sharp lens.

basflt

thanks for help

@ puzzledpaul , i have two HQ macro lenses , tubes and converters , and a Sigma 120-400
i was looking for an universal lens to fill the gap between macro and tele , witch means a zoom


@ ThatCanonGuy , thanks for explaining , i will follow your advice

indeed , the inability to zoom ...
when in the field , with no special plans [ macro or wildlife ] i want to shoot anything that cross my path

@ zoomer thanks
i will look for a 3x zoom

basflt

update ;
followed the given advice and i just placed the order

i was i bit surprised by the amount of different 70-200f2.8 available
read a lot of reviews and forums

decided to get a recent one , rather then go for cheap / second hand

i chosen for a Sigma 70-200mm Ni F/2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM FLD

thanks again and C U later

:slurp

puzzledpaul

Too late, but I just remembered this - of which you're probably already aware

pp

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AFDMicroZoom70180mmED/index.htm

Art Scott

basflt wrote: »

update ;
followed the given advice and i just placed the order

i was i bit surprised by the amount of different 70-200f2.8 available
read a lot of reviews and forums

decided to get a recent one , rather then go for cheap / second hand

i chosen for a Sigma 70-200mm Ni F/2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM FLD

thanks again and C U later

:slurp

I have never had a bad copy of a Sigma lens, but I have heard several on here complain...so my adive is to shoot the crap out of the lens...since you went for this to do close up work...shot the crap out of it doing close ups...if it is too windy or hot out side go to a zoo or some when you can shoot indoors with a tripod...work it to death and if it is not doing it's job correctly then send it back for another copy........I even had a Sigma 28-200 Ultra Compact that was tack sharp...so either I am just extremely lucky or I have great guardian angles looking out for me...or both.....

basflt

just arrived

not much close ups w this lens
minimum distance is 5 feet
but , i wanted it to fill the gap between macro and tele , so no complain ....

i have read complains too
but this one is fine , will take it out ASAP

my finding now , without really trying
fast
light
feels good
lets a lot of light in
and a very big + ; zoom happens internal , no barrel that comes out , like with my Sigma 120-400

small minus = minimum distance [ 5feet / 1.5 meter ]

zoomer

...well that is where the Sigma 150 Macro would have been better....but then you don't have the flexibility on the short end.
The max you would want to go is 1.7 extender and that is pushing it.

Have fun with your new lens!

puzzledpaul

basflt wrote: »

not much close ups w this lens
minimum distance is 5 feet ...

...small minus = minimum distance [ 5feet / 1.5 meter ]

Sounds like your extension tubes'll be useful

My post #11 on linked thread shows what I get when adding a full set of tubes to a Canon 70-200 (on a 1.6 crop body) - mfd with this lens is normally approx 4ft, btw.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=111683&highlight=extension+tube

Curious about what 'non-macro' wildlife you'll be after with this lens?

pp

basflt

puzzledpaul , i was aiming at larger subjects , like dragons and flowers
these are not necessarily macro
or , at least , they dont require a macro lens


tried both tubes and converters
they dont work
AF goes hunting like idiot

think the lens is good as it is

zoomer , i have a 100mm Nikkor Micro and a Canon MPE65 , and a set of tubes and two converters
that is enough macro for me

....i even grinded out one of the converters flanges to force-fit Sigma


every one , thanks for support , appreciated , stick around as i will , and we ll meet again