1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

My Last Lens Ever!

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mrsollars, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. The way I see it I have the opportunity to make one more lens purchase!
    I am getting married at the end of May and once my bride-to-be finds out that good lenses run upwards of $500, that will be the end of my lens purchasing power, until I can save my spare change in a piggy bank hidden from her.

    So what should it be?

    Here is what I have:
    Nikon D80
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
    Nikon 50mm f/1.8

    Here is what I need:
    A telephoto zoom
    A macro lens?

    For sanity sake lets put a price limit at $1000 total. Anything less is better.
    I have been thinking about a nice macro lens (105VR, Tamron 90?) and a cheaper zoom like a Sigma 70-300APO.

    I may also like to throw a tripod into this last bulk purchase... probably a Bogen 3021 with a cheaper ballhead, being that I won't have any real hefty lenses.

    Any suggestions of combinations of lenses to fufill my photography needs and desires until my piggy bank gets full again (20 some years down the road)

  2. I would go with a Nikon 80-200 2.8. The image quality is excellent and should match up well with your 17-50. It can last you the 20+ years you will have to wait until you can get a new lens :smile: . The lens can be found new for about $850 USD. This would also give you some money to get the tripod/head combo you were looking at.

    Let us know what you decide.

  3. what would you suggest for the ''macro itch''

    that's why i was thinking something like the 150 2.9 sigma could be on the list...but i'd need a tripod to steady that for 1:1

    i had the chance to borrow an 80-200 2.8 just last weekend and loved it. it was the 'non -S' version, but i liked it. what's to gain with the af-s version (price is higher i know)

    thanks for the quick reply.

  4. Zachs


    Feb 25, 2006
    I would get an 80-200 w/ a 1.7x TC and a Canon 500D filter. This will give you good macro ability + an excellent short tele + a sharp long tele, and it all fits in one bag.
  5. Brian-S


    Feb 10, 2007
    Bay Area, CA
    for the macro itch, i'd go with the 60/2.8D or the 105 VR. i've got the non-VR myself and love it, and think the VR is probably only even better. if you go with the 60, you could probably also sell the 50 and have another 100 bucks to play with their.

    i second the 80-200/2.8. it's a great lens and will last you many, many years. if money is no object though, i'd think seriously about the 70-200. it's an amazing piece of glass and i wouldn't trade mine for anything.

    good luck and congratulations on getting married! (or should i say self-imprisonment?)

  6. i don't know much about the TC or the 500D filter.
    how much are these and what reach and apert. will i be at with that setup?
  7. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    I'm pleased with my Bogen 3021 with the RC322 ballhead. You can get the combo from B&H for about $270 + shipping. My only complaint (and this could be user ignorance) is that I don't find it good for panorama shots. It seems too easy to slip up your axis when moving from one shot to the next with that pistol grip. Otherwise, I'm happy.

    If this is part of your $1000 limit, I'd still say get it and then go for whatever glass you can afford for the remaining $700. It may seem obvious to go with a telephoto, since you don't have that part covered. However, you may like the Tokina 12-24, too. I didn't think I'd use a super-wide that often, but I'm finding it gets plenty of time on my camera.

    Hey, that'd still leave a couple hundred left for filters, a bag, or some other accessories.
  8. You could go macro AND a tele-zoom... the 80-200mm + TC + Diopter isn't a bad idea... the same could be said for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM + 1.4x + Diopter... either of these options would be a great tele-zoom and a pretty decent macro solution.

    But another interesting idea might be a Nikkor 70-180mm Micro... it's not a f/2.8 zoom but its aperature and focal length does stay constant while focusing, something the micro-nikkor primes can't do. These can be had around $1000... this would be a great macro solution and a pretty good tele-zoom too.

  9. 80-200 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8 af-s???

    teleconverters still stump me....only some can be used on certain lenses?!?! cost?

    diopters....quality of images? focal distance? , etc. cost?

    thanks for the help guys.

  10. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    Of course....if she really loves you, this won't be your last lens ever. It's just something she'll have to understand and accept.

    Good luck with that.
  11. Hehehe. Sounds like you're a little nervous :biggrin:.

    The 80-200 is a fast focuser. The AF-S version is marginally faster, because it has an internal motor that focuses the lens based on instructions it receives from the camera body. But the AF-S version was discontinued 4 years ago when the 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR was introduced, so you can only buy used ones.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  12. Jeff Lee

    Jeff Lee

    May 16, 2006
    I second the 80-200 (used two ring), and get a Canon 500D - it will give you a very good macro setup.

    You will not regret the 80-200 - a very fine lens.
  13. Definitely make sure to get a good head before you get married... you definitely won't afterwords!

    Sorry, couldn't resist...
  14. geejay: are you referring to the thread that uncle frank posted?
    looks like everybody is pointing to the 80-200. if i don't need the distance with the low light.....what about a good macro/portrait lens (non vr 105...or sigma 150) and get a sigma 70-300 apo for distance?. this should leave me a little....and i mean a LITTLE for tripod and head??

  15. yeah....i saw that coming from a mile away.....(no pun intended)

  16. Lowolf


    Jan 26, 2006
    you know if you tell the future wife you have this bill that needs say $150.00 a month over next 4 years you can keep getting new lens and Camera's but hmm $200.00 would let you get it sooner
  17. Matt,

    Why do you have to stop pursuing your hobby after you get married? I'm sure your fiancee has things she wants to spend money on. It's just a matter of compromising...

    Just show her the photos you take with your TOOLS and maybe you can have her start giving you camera gear as gifts! Good luck!
  18. With $1000 you could probably swing $200 for a tripod, $500 for a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM, and $300 for a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro. If you wanted to spend more on a tripod you could get a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for around $200 (got mine for $175) or Phoenix/Vivitar/Cosina 100mm f/3.5 Macro for $135... the last one is built like a toy but the optics are spot-on.
  19. not a bad idea.

    she knows i like toys. i'm a big 'mac' fan as well...so i'm looking to upgrade computers from here on out and she knows i'm liking photography etc.
    she just doesn't know how much it can cost....potentially.
    we've agreed on a ''gadget/toy fund'' that i can dump into monthly after bills. (we just haven't set a limit on the 'monthly dump' amount.)

    she'll be good to me.....but we're both teachers...so the high, high end stuff is out for good probably.

  20. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    Do you teach mathematics? What you need to do is find the equation to equal WAF (wife acceptance factor).
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.