Good all around lens?

I'll probably invest in that in the future. But I was hoping for a lens that I can do close ups with and I'm not thisclose. :)
 
With that budget your stuck with the Nikon AF-S 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6. Or get the Nikon 18mm - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G with the Kenko DG Auto Extension Tube Set for the Nikon.
 
The 55-200 is an inexpensive kit lens. Not bad but certainly not in the "Excellent" category either. I have one and seldom use it to be honest.

The 55-300 isn't a bad lens however the 70-300 is reputed to be much better. I haven't used the 55-300 but have a 70-300 that is one of my favorite lenses.
 
If you don't mind used, you could get a Tamron 90mm 2.8 SP Di. Ive seen them go used for $300.

This. If you want portraits *and* macro, don't buy a slow aperture telephoto zoom.

I have an older Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro, which might be above your budget (lowest I've seen is around $450), but it's perfect for portraits and macro. Insanely sharp too.

The third party equivelents, like the Tamron 90mm 2.8 are also held in very high regard, and I've heard good things about the Sigma 105mm Macro but I'm not quite sure how much those sell for.
 
If you don't mind used, you could get a Tamron 90mm 2.8 SP Di. Ive seen them go used for $300.

I would go with this. Good for portraits and macro and much better quality the the zoom lenses that you listed. Those are kind of junky. Plus the f2.8 will give you nice depth of field for portraits and be much faster.
 
The third party equivelents, like the Tamron 90mm 2.8 are also held in very high regard, and I've heard good things about the Sigma 105mm Macro but I'm not quite sure how much those sell for.

The sigma is about 3x her budget new and even used it is probably about 2x her budget if not more. Depends on the condition of the lens. Good lens though. Super sharp and great resolution. But you get what you pay for.
 
Thanks everyone. Thing is I'm looking for a zoom and not a prime... I would be ok with being around $450
 
Thanks everyone. Thing is I'm looking for a zoom and not a prime... I would be ok with being around $450

The prime would be a better way to go for what you described. It may be some what more limited but you will get an equivalent focal length of 135mm f2.8. This is a extremely handy focal length for portraits, macro and street shooting. Plus the quality would be like night and day.
 
If you don't mind used, you could get a Tamron 90mm 2.8 SP Di. Ive seen them go used for $300.

I would go with this. Good for portraits and macro and much better quality the the zoom lenses that you listed. Those are kind of junky. Plus the f2.8 will give you nice depth of field for portraits and be much faster.

I also agree with this.

No zoom lens will get you real Macro, and you're likely to get better bokeh out of a prime when doing portraits.
 
If you don't mind used, you could get a Tamron 90mm 2.8 SP Di. Ive seen them go used for $300.

I would go with this. Good for portraits and macro and much better quality the the zoom lenses that you listed. Those are kind of junky. Plus the f2.8 will give you nice depth of field for portraits and be much faster.

I also agree with this.

No zoom lens will get you real Macro, and you're likely to get better bokeh out of a prime when doing portraits.

Listen to the pros! And dont buy the dog food zoom!
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top