What is the difference between this and the older model lens? I am guessing that this has no macro?
1666431
Hi Kristi, you can provide us what is the exact model number of the lens you are pertaining to so that we can assist you further. Thank you. -Ely
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
354492
I personally love this lens. But then, I am not trying to photograph bugs with it. My photos are perfect and have caught some great photos of hummingbirds I was shooting recently. I have a Canon T3. It does Macro.
1380698
I called Nikon, and they guided me to their site where you could do a compare on both lens (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/Sports-and-Action/index.page). Turns out the old one is heavier, has more elements, and takes sharper pictures. This one is very ideal for me and takes great pictures. The lighter the better. Hope I answered your question.
933396
The main difference on the 24-70 2.8 will be the 24mm setting compared to the 35mm setting on the old lens. You can take a much wider shot with the new lens. In addition, the 24-70 is a "G" type lens which means there is no aperture ring on the lens. Aperture must be controlled through a compatible camera. The 24-70 2.8 is more expensive. The macro focusing gets a little closer on the 35-70 (.91ft) as opposed to 1.2 ft with the 24-70.
933398
This lens does not have macro, or what Nikon labels "micro" focusing capability. I will say, though, that the 24-70/2.8 takes such beautiful images that it stays on my camera about 80-90% of the time. Check out the 105/2.8 "micro-Nikkor" lens for macro as well as good portrait alternative.
1801157
The Macro can give some fun perspectives foreground to background. As for if it is an upgrade the aperture difference alone is an upgrade as it will allow you to take more pictures with only available light instead of using flash. I love this lens and the glass is great.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
2075463
It works good at a macro but because it is a zoom with AF, it can be difficult to use it as a 'true' macro lens. I prefer to use this for wildlife and landscapes but I have used it for macro. Use the MF if going to use for macro. I hope this makes sense.
918492
It produces a pretty decent macro in my opinion I've used it very little for such though... If you're looking for a specific macro lens though, this is not it.
1293197
The IS feature the only real difference. That can be useful depending on the type of photography you're doing. Since it's a prime and not a telephoto lens I personally have never missed having the image stabilization. I do a lot of macro work and use fast shutter speeds.
2564
does not come with a macro lens, you need to buy it seperately, this is old non HD camera thou the CCD does not have the rolling shutter problem, so I still think it is a good camera thou I would go HD,
1506918
It has both and one really great lens I would recommend it too anyone!!! Also great macro use if you want to use it for that!!!
916596
I attached my macro lens to my Nikon kit 18-55mm lens. Just be sure to remove any filters you have on the lens first, otherwise the macro won't be able to attach. I think this is why the lenses are so cheap. You're getting the heavy duty lens functions (like autofocus, etc) from your primary lens, then the macro is just a fun add-on. If you only want a macro without having to attach it to another lens, you have to pay a lot more. I'm sure you also get more quality out of it, but given the price of this lens, you can still get some amazing pictures out of it.
833870
Hello, there is an Auto Focus on this lens. Click the switch by AF - M to use Auto Focus (AF) however when shooting Macro, it's usually better and easier to manually focus. I hope this helped.
264234
It's a 50 mm fixed lens. I am able to get fairly close to subject and focus, but not macro
1235276
With the Canon version the camera reports f/2.8 at every distance including macro. There is some light loss at macro distances but don't worry about this, the exposure meter compensates automatically. With the Nikon version you may see the loss of light at close distances reflected as the camera actually reporting a smaller aperture. Either way it's completely normal for a macro lens to have some loss of light at very close distances. All macro lenses are the same in this regard. Don't worry about it!