Macro Lens vs stabilized lens

[petrochemist]

If you're really shooting "macro" (close-up) photography, you can use a flash but a typical pop-up flash may have a problem with the lens it

You can get a "ring light" flash that goes around the lens. This produces flat lighting, but the advantage is that it's all-around light. But what's more, you can now shoot at the max flash-sync speed for your camera and (probably at least 1/200th for most cameras, I think the slowest flash sync speed I've seen in recent years is 1/160th which is still plenty fast for hand-held shots.) At that speed, hand-held shots are no problem and you don't need image stabilization.

If you're shooting with flash the shutter speed is likely to be pretty much irrelevant. In most cases over 99.99% of your light is going to come from the flash which takes around 1/10 000th of a second. Of course at those speeds you don't need image stabilization for the shot. It MAY still help with framing your image.

From the sound of things the OP isn't going to be shooting macro anyway, Just perhaps some close-ups. Given the choice between a stabilized zoom and a close focusing zoom I'd pick stabilization every time. It's not difficult to get the lens to focus much closer than a typical 'macro' zoom.

 

[Derrel]

...camera body I have is Nikon D5100. Lenses that I've been looking at are Tamron SP 70-200/2.8 Di VC USD and what I am guessing its macro counterpart SP AF70-200 F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro. I was looking at slightly used so let's say budget 1K max. I think I saw similar story with Sigma lenses but cannot figure out model numbers right now.

The older Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR-G (the first one offered back in the early 2000's) is a FINE lens on a DX camera like the D5100. It is a sweet-handling lens with a very slender barrel, and a fantastic manual focusing ring placement, and it is identifiable by the front-mounted focus hold buttons. This lens was really intended for the DX-frame and its 29mm image circle, and it is a GOOD lens on DX. It will cover full-frame, yes, but its not the best on over 12-megapixel sensors on FF. Bokeh is extremely nice from this lens. For a D5100, this is the lens I would want the most as a lower-cost option in a Nikon mount. This is a "slender barrel" f/2.8 lens, and it works GREAT on 16Mp and lower DX Nikons! This is not the "fat pig" barrel of like a Nikkor 80-200 AF-S f/2.8 or a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS USM...no, this is a MUCH easier-to-handle lens than other designs, and it was optimized for the smaller, DX-area image circle of its era.


The Tamron you are comparing is the NEWEST model, and the old, slow-focusing, not-so-well-received model , their SP AF70-200 F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro. That lens is much less-costly theese days used. Member coastalconn here on TPF had one for sale recently at like $300 for the 70-200 IMMSMC.

One issue is that 70-200 lenses can now be 17 years old, or more, depending on manufacturer, and the model names can be similar, or confusing, and sometimes even 10-year-old brand-new lenses are offered by retailers, often times not using the term NOS or "new, old stock", and asking very high prices, hoping to trick buyers whop are not aware their new lens is from the early to mid-2000's era.

 

[Derrel]

Let's be clear about a couple things you mentioned. You have trouble making sense of the Sigma 70-200 moel numbers because EVERYBODY did as well! I think this was deliberate, and helps protect the value of dealer stocks of lenses from one generation to the next. The Sigma's were similarly-named. I never could keep them straight in my mind.

Tamron's "LD Di" was their Low-Dispersion glass, "Digitally-integrated" era, and the Macro they tacked on was designed as a marketing note. There are very few zooms that are anywhere close to being a true, real macro lens, but some do focus pretty close for their type. This is revelaed in the Maximum Image Magnification, not the minimum focus distance. If a lens goes to 1:3.9, it is in no way a "macro" lens. That is just under 1:4, or One-Fourth Life Size...nowhere near a maximum magnification that is really considered macro.


Ignore the word "macro" when looking at most zoom lenses; it really means nothing except that the lens can focus closer than would be expected for its type/length. Howeevr, in the case of the Tamron macro counterpart SP AF70-200 F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro--that name tells ytou it is 1) an earlier-generation model, not the newest model.

 

[fmw]

Let me try to recap for you, OP.
1. Macro in a zoom lens is a marketing term intended to tell you that the lens will focus closer than one not so marked. Pretty much all of them are so marked so you can ignore it.
2. Image stablization is a feature that helps defeat or reduce motion blur. For most images, the lack of motion blur is a big plus. If the image would display motion blur without the feature, then it can be helpful. There are other ways to defeat or reduce motion blur and I consider them superior to using an IS lens. That is why I never use the feature personally. I'm not even sure I have any lenses with the feature. I don't believe there is a downside to IS lenses since the IS feature, which degrades image quality somewhat, can be turned off. Those with more experience with the feature can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[matrosov]

Thank you very much. That definitely got me set straight. I'll take a look around see if I can find that older Nikon lens somewhere in the stores in the area. Would definitely serve the purpose even if the motor breaks in a year.