VR. Is it helpful in macro photography? Hi. I am looking for a macro lens and it's between this one and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG. I ordered and have the Sigma lens. I love it's image quality. It seems to be a great lens. My biggest problem is most of the time I don't use a tripod and I am constantly getting blurred shots with the Sigma. I have tried to going to the Shutter Priority and that has helped a lot, but I still get a lot of blurred shots. I know the Nikon 85mm lens has VR. I really believe VR would make all the difference in my picture taking. Have you tried taking any macro shots with the Nikon hand held and if so, what was your experience? I would appreciate any answer you can give me. Thanks a lot. Ken VR. Is it helpful in macro photography? Hi. I am looking for a macro lens and it's between this one and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG. I ordered and have the Sigma lens. I love it's image... » Read More VR. Is it helpful in macro photography? Hi. I am looking for a macro lens and it's between this one and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG. I ordered and have the Sigma lens. I love it's image quality. It seems to be a great lens. My biggest problem is most of the time I don't use a tripod and I am constantly getting blurred shots with the Sigma. I have tried to going to the Shutter Priority and that has helped a lot, but I still get a lot of blurred shots. I know the Nikon 85mm lens has VR. I really believe VR would make all the difference in my picture taking. Have you tried taking any macro shots with the Nikon hand held and if so, what was your experience? I would appreciate any answer you can give me. Thanks a lot. Ken « Show Less
1686347
thank so much what do you think about the 55mm 2.8what is best deal i have physical limitations due to wheel chair but lve macro concept
1686348
Hi William. I was able to get better hand held pictures by increasing my shutter speed. Sometimes it is not convenient to carry a tripod when the objective is to find a bee on a flower. By the time you get set up, the object is gone. I have two good tripods and will use them when I have to. I really appreciate your insight on VR and how it doesn't help in macro photography. I feel a lot better about my lens now and am getting some really good detailed shots with it. Thanks again. Ken
885248
Really for macro work VR is pointless, and is only useful when using the lens for a short telephoto. At macro distances, you really need to use a tripod to avoid the blur. If you read the fine print on the Nikon macros with VR, they pretty much say that the benefit of VR degrades the closer you are to the subject.
465671
VR is handy in low light when your subject is relatively static because it allows you to shoot with a lower ISO, which theoretically delivers better color, less noise, etc. VR won't help freeze action, however, so your wiggly kids will still look blurry. I have VR on my 16-85mm DX Nikkor, which I only occasionally use indoors without a flash. Also, a basic relationship still exists between focal range and image quality. At a given price point, the lens with the greater range will deliver the poorer results; it's simply more expensive for a manufacturer to engineer the more complex optics and mechanics for a big-range lens, which leaves less money available to finely tune a more simple system. My 16-85mm zoom has notably better image quality than Nikon's 18-200mm, and they're nearly the same price at $600. Along the same line, 3rd-party vendors typically trade-off build quality for image quality. So you can find Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina lenses with pretty nice image quality at prices considerably cheaper than a Nikon or Canon lens, but they aren't built as well. And in the end, yes, a pro Sigma will look cleaner than an amateur Nikon, but the comparable pro Nikon will almost always perform better in every category than the pro Sigma. You get what you pay for.
422107
bought my nikon d40 lately. read good things about the camera through kenrockwell site. it helps me a lot to decide. now am thinking of buying the nikkor 18-200mm VR lense. btw the 50mm f1/4 lense and d40 they say is compatible. but am not so sure how to install the lense in the camera. any suggestions?
448718
I've owned both lenses, and in my opinion for use with FX cameras the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR lens is a better lens than the old 24-120mm f/3/5-5.6G. The 24-85G is sharper, especially at the edges; it's lighter; and its VR function works better. Of course, you give up the extra range, but I've found that 85mm is adequate for most general photography.
840152
Thank you guys, really appreciate you help. I was in confused state in selecting sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 macro, but after a week study i have selected this sigma 50-150mm which is exactly in my budget. Once again thank you guys.
134990
Hello. I purchased tis lens and I can not be happier with it. The image quality comapred to the sigma to em is superior. LEss Chromatic Averration and way less distrotions on the edge of the frame on full frame cameras.Build is oustanding and I do used it for my paid jobs. Lokk at this link so you cna see some of the images of this magnificent and very good quality lens:http://fmta.com.mx/index.php/galerias-de-fotos/galeriasolimpiadas2014/64-olimpiadasclasificatorias2
616752
First, it's not a Nikon. There is a chance that it may not fully functional properly on future Nikon models. The new Sigma ART series can have firmware updated after release, this could solve the problem. Secondly, I have had slight out of focus problems. But this might not the problem of the lens: the camera has to detect the focus difference and send a signal to the lens. If the camera fails to detect the difference at a particular point, it will not send any signal to the lens. And you will have a focus problem for that shot. Therefore, the problem might not relate to the lens after all. Overall I have 99% positive experience. As for the rest of 1%, I would argue that's is true for any lens you purchase, even for a $1,500 Nikon lens.
1679834
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikon i know it's been a while but that may give some insight. i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
797773
So this is a major concession in comparison with much less expensive cameras' focusing distances of one to two inches. Anyone with ideas as to why this is so. I used a Nikkormat with a Nikon macro lens for many years and have considered a Nikon digital body to allow continued use of the lens. Anyone with any thoughts on marrying such different technologies?
2059522
With the VR, it performs fairly well. It is 1/2 stop slower than the older 18-300, but it's lighter and has better optical characteristics. The 1/2 step is not really an issue. Just remember that it does stop down to f6.3 at full telephoto. If you use Auto ISO, this could help compensate. If you have realistic expectations about what the lens can do, it will serve you well.
1046019
The link for the comparison at cameralabs.com is not applicable because it tested the Sigma 18-200 DC prior to the release of the OS version. The OS version is much better optically than its predecessor and also includes HSM (High Speed Motor). I have read test reviews and comparisons at other sites such as popphoto that indicate the Sigma is sharper and has less distortion than the Nikon 18-200 VR, but they also state it is slightly louder. I just received my Sigma 18-200 OS today and have done limited testing, but I can tell you the AF and OS noise are not bad (the OS chirps when it turns on and off). The Sigma AF is louder than my Nikon 18-135 (w/SWM), but quieter than the AF on my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime (wo/SWM). The HSM AF seems just as fast as my Nikon lenses. The build quality feels better than the Nikon 18-135; the zoom is smooth and solid. The first things I tested today were barrel distortion and OS functionality. Barrel distortion is present at the wide end on ALL wide-range zooms, but the Sigma controls it better. The Sigma has noticeably less barrel distortion at 18mm than my Nikon. This benefit of the Sigma is moot really, because barrel distortion of both lenses can easily be corrected with software. The OS functions very well, I can shoot hand-held down to 1/10th of a second with no blur. I will post again after I have time to do more testing.
811136
I have a Nikon mount of this lens and I also have the Nikon's top of the line 70-200 VRII lens and the images produced by my copy of this lens are as sharp as the Nikons 70-200. I liked my copy of this Tamron lens better than the Nikon 24-70mm lens. I would say give it a shot and if you get a good copy of this lens it will be a keeper.
2123502
If you hear a click before and after focus and release the shutter in your camera is totally normal....switch the VR off and you will notice that the click disappears...not big deal is totally normal...actually i have a few lenses that click in some way when the VR or OS or VC is ON....for me the results are that really matters...however..without the Vr if the noise of "click" is there then you should call nikon or if you can return for an exchange....good luck...I have thus lens and i made an extensive research about it...plus, I have another lenses like the 105 sigma OS macro and tamron 70-300 VC that some way make some "click" when the VC,OS, or VR is on... If you hear a click before and after focus and release the shutter in your camera is totally normal....switch the VR off and you will notice that the click disappears...not big deal is totally normal...actually i have a few lenses that click in some way when the VR or OS or VC is ON....for me the results are that really matters...however..without the Vr if the noise of "click" is there then you should call nikon or if you can return for an exchange....good luck...I have thus lens and i made an extensive research about it...plus, I have another lenses like the 105 sigma OS macro... » Read More If you hear a click before and after focus and release the shutter in your camera is totally normal....switch the VR off and you will notice that the click disappears...not big deal is totally normal...actually i have a few lenses that click in some way when the VR or OS or VC is ON....for me the results are that really matters...however..without the Vr if the noise of "click" is there then you should call nikon or if you can return for an exchange....good luck...I have thus lens and i made an extensive research about it...plus, I have another lenses like the 105 sigma OS macro and tamron 70-300 VC that some way make some "click" when the VC,OS, or VR is on... « Show Less
963339
This is like comparing apples to oranges. The 70-300mm VR is strictly a "consumer-prosumer" grade lens. Think of it as the "cheap version" of the famous Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II lens. The 28-300mm VR lens is more for the serious amateur or professional on the go that shoots full frame 35mm or DX. I use 2 Nikon D800's and the 28-300mm lens is on one of them at all times. The newer version that is out now is better than the first issue of a couple years ago, and even at 36 megapixels, I'm getting clean, clear, crisp shots...something I rarely got with my 70-300mm lens. To be perfectly honest, with a GOOD quality multi-coated UV filter on it, you can use this lens all day without changing lenses once. It has become my "walking around" lens of choice. In fact, I just got back from Hawaii and used it for 9 days straight without using any of the other 7 lenses I had in my bag. I recommend it, even for your D7000...you'll just end up shooting an effective range of 105mm to 450mm, or a LOOOONNNNGGGG telephoto lens when you need it.
1803406
I had a D40 before the D60, the D60 is MUCH better, just my personal thoughts 1-Dust, if you live in a dusty environment is a BIG ONE 2-Active D-light, Say good bye to underexposed photos, the camera produces very consistent results, not so with the D40 3-Expeed produced lower noise at higher ISO 4-THE VR Lens is SOOO much worth it, my pictures are always sharp I considered the D80, but... 1-No Active D-light "a big one" 2-more focus points yes, but you can do anything with 3 if you use them well 3-the D80 has a motor, but Nikon will be updating most of this primes to AFS this year, I tried the camera motor its slowwww 4-I was planing to get the D80+50mm 1.4 lens for low light, got the sigma 30mm 1.4 its a much better lens to keep on the camera IMHO 5-Expeed processing on the D60 seems to produce more saturated/vivid pictures vs.. D80 I shoot RAW/convert with capture NX, tried all the options, capture NX is slow and ugly, but it gives you the BEST picture period.
75252
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, I ended up buying the Sigma lens and I agree with you when you say that is a great value for the price.So far I'm very happy with this lens, I have used it in both daylight and night time (with external flash) and the results have been excellent with my D5000, the OS is great and focusing is very fast indeed.Again, thank's !George
547368
Be aware that the AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm is a DX lens, whereas the AFS 60mm is FX, "full frame." If the camera is full frame, you should be comparing the 60mm to the AF-S VR 105mm (I think). There is also a 200 macro, which is a very good macro lens, but it is more suited for tripod work. I guessing they don't want a tripod in the operating theater.