Advice on three different lenses

[WolfSpring]

I'm considering getting one of these three lenses, I'd like to here others opinions/experience on these lenses.
Nikon 10.5 mm DX f/2.8 G IF-ED AF Lens
Tamron 200-500 mm SP AF F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) Zoom Lens for Nikon D-Series
Sigma 170-500mm APO F5-6.3 DG AF Zoom Lens for Nikon AF

A lot of people are telling this should be my next lens:

Sigma 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical Lens for Nikon AF

But I don't see me using that alot and the 10.5 is faster, if I go below 18 I'm going to be doing horizon's and sunsets and 2.8 vs 4.5-5.6 I can crop out anything I'd get 12-24 right?

Someone also suggested a good macro lens Which I do get a lot of butterfly pictures, would it be more practical to get a macro lens or just use one of the existing I have and/or buy one of my other three and get a macro filter? And are macro filters all that great? thanks for any advice in advance.

 

[johnmh]

Looking at your current inventory, you have the middle covered well - the question is "What are my priorities next? - fisheye, close-up, wide angle or long reach?"


The Nikon 10.5 is a fisheye lens - pricey for a limited application. It does what it does well - my son uses his regularly but I'd be hard pressed to make as much use of it.

You can get the Nikon 105 VR macro for not much more - or get a non VR macro for half what the 10.5 goes for. I have the 105 VR which I use to shoot modeling dioramas (comparable to butterflies in scale) but not sure it was worth the cost for the use I give it however my HS age son loves it for close-ups of flowers and such. A non-VR macro 60 or 105 would be half the cost.

I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 for wide angle - it was under $500. That range would complement what you have - if wide angle is your next priority. Can't vouch for the Sigma but the Tokina was a good price compromise compared to the Nikon.

As far as long reach lenses go - your 500 option lenses - I've been debating that lately. I have a 70-200 2.8 VR - a pricey but versatile lens. Replaced my 70-300 VR in regular use but it's HEAVY and LARGE in comparison (kept the 70-300 cause it's light and smaller). I LOVE the VR aspect and have used this with a 2x teleconverter with a monopod. BUT for a long reach lens - up to 400 or 500mm ...... there are some real compromises involved and it gets expensive. A narrower range improves quality overall. VR of some kind is GOOD unless you're always on a tripod. I'm coming to the conclusion that about $1000 is the buy-in here for anything worthwhile. Sigma 80-400OS, Sigma 50-500 look interesting. The Tokina 80-400 costs less and weighs less but you should try that out to see if it meets your standards.

I like the thought of the Nikon 80-400 VR but the $$$, weight, and speed combined make me hold back. I keep hoping someone will come out with an AF-S or similar system, VR/OS, in the 200-500 f/4-5.6 range......... THAT I would pay $$$ for.....

(the Nikon 200-400 VR 2.8 would work if I could justify the $$$ but I can't ....... that would be grounds for divorce)

 

[WolfSpring]

Well I ended up going with the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. And buying the wife a SB-600 for her D40. Now my short end is coverd my next big purchase will either be a prime f/2.8 lens or a macro OR a long lens later, prob around tax time. Looking at a good 4-6K then. Might actually upgrade the body and give the wife the D80. Now it's time to work on some lighting knowledge and equipment on the low end. Thanks for your opinion and advice on those lenses though.

 

[johnmh]

Try out whatever you're considering as an upgrade. My D200 is heavier - substantially - than my old D70 and runs through batteries far faster (I ended up adding the MB pack - even MORE weight). End result is that even though my wife covets the functionality of the D200, she won't use it because of the weight.

The D300 looks interesting but not worth upgrading to me at this point. The D3 obsoletes out my DX lenses so..... not going there. Chose my path in going Nikon a while ago and locked in now.