80-200 f/2.8 or 150 f/2.8 macro?

TCR4x4

TCR4x4

Wishes he had a couple more Inches
Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,852
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
I have that urge I get all too often.. Money just wants to be spent.

I sold all my macro gear to buy a 300mm f/4. I sold the 300mm f/4 to buy a long zoom for airshows, but now have the urge to get a good quality bit of long fast glass.

I'd love to do some more macro with winter coming up, so the sigma 150 macro makes sense, but then, I'd also love some Autumn forest portraits, that the 80-200 would be great at.

Someone decide for me please.. :bonk:
 
Well the 150 obviously doesn't do portraits as well as the zoom due to lack of flexibility, but I dare say it does a much better job of portraits than the 80-200 does of macro.

I have seen some stunning portraits with the 150mm though.
Have a look in this flickr discussion.
 
that's hard logic to fault!

I'm in a similar boat that my next two lenses are the 80-200 and a macro. Given that I use my 55-200 a lot more often than I need to use my other lenses for macro, the 80-200 is the next one. What is your usage frequency?

Also, don't discount the 300 for portraits. Yes it is long. If you want a full body length shot you're going to have to back up. But for head/shoulders shots and candids it is awesome for isolating your subject. And, if you're in the closer range of focus the background just goes to a soft blur.

Thanks,
Rick

thanks,
rick
 
The 80-200 f2.8 is a class lens and a good jack of all trades from sport to portrait I've used mine for all sorts over the years.
 
I love my 80-200, but I also love a good prime too. tough call. glad it's yours. ;)
 
The23rdman said:
I love my 80-200, but I also love a good prime too. tough call. glad it's yours. ;)
Click to expand...

Dont you just hate these types of situations!

Im really stuck. The logic of the macro being better at portraits than the 80-200 is at macro is very true, but then the thought of 200mm bokeh f/2.8 portraits makes me wee a little.
I think its going to be a case of set up a load of snipes on ebay with my auction sniper and see which I win first, because I cant decide.
 
TCR4x4 said:
but then the thought of 200mm bokeh f/2.8 portraits makes me wee a little.
Click to expand...

Hmm...good as the 80-200 is, wide open at 200mm isn't the best place to be with that lens, it's just not sharp enough IMO and does need stopping down.
 
I have obtained, over the last few months, the nikon 70-200 f2.8 ---fantasic results in all situations.
New last month the nikon 105 f2.8 macro---tested it against other non nikon macro lenses = clearest lens and very smooth in operation=very pleased with the results.
 
Go for the Siggie 150 & if your not happy then I would consider taking it off your hands for quite a considerable loss fo your original purchase price :p

Go for the Siggie Tom - I would if I was in your shoes (I've owned 3 and regretted selling each one of them :$)
 
Ive had both a 70-200 and the Nikon 105. Dont want either again. (Ive also had the sigma 105, Canon 100mm L IS and tamron 90)

I want a longer macro this time around if I take that route, as the smaller focal lengths working distance is bit close for me.

The 70-200, great though it is, is overpriced, especially when you can get the 80-200 for half the price.
 
Trig's said:
Go for the Siggie 150 & if your not happy then I would consider taking it off your hands for quite a considerable loss fo your original purchase price :p

Go for the Siggie Tom - I would if I was in your shoes (I've owned 3 and regretted selling each one of them :$)
Click to expand...


I know you are a advocate of the siggy, it was you that put the thought in my mind. Im leaning towards it, but the 80-200 is not far behind!
 
TCR4x4 said:
I know you are a advocate of the siggy, it was you that put the thought in my mind. Im leaning towards it, but the 80-200 is not far behind!
Click to expand...


:eek: When did I do that :thinking:
 
jpw said:
Hmm...good as the 80-200 is, wide open at 200mm isn't the best place to be with that lens, it's just not sharp enough IMO and does need stopping down.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just shy of 200 works fine though.
 
jpw said:
Hmm...good as the 80-200 is, wide open at 200mm isn't the best place to be with that lens, it's just not sharp enough IMO and does need stopping down.
Click to expand...

The23rdman said:
Agreed. Just shy of 200 works fine though.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so maybe then something like a 135 DC might be another option. I want sharpness and bokeh... Or The siggy 85mm f/1.4 :love:

I need to win the lottery so badly and just buy the lot!
 
TCR4x4 said:
Hmm, so maybe then something like a 135 DC might be another option. I want sharpness and bokeh... Or The siggy 85mm f/1.4 :love:

I need to win the lottery so badly and just buy the lot!
Click to expand...

If you want wide open performance you'll always be better with a prime, as you know.
 
The23rdman said:
If you want wide open performance you'll always be better with a prime, as you know.
Click to expand...

Tis true. Im contemplating going all or mostly prime, but not sure I could sell my 16-35 and 24-70!

Thing is I only ever use the 16-35 at 16mm, and havent used the 24-70 since I bought the 16-35!

Since selling my 300mm My only prime is the Samyang 85mm, which is sharp as a pin, but the lack of AF is a pain in the backside.

Damn life is hard work!
 
Last edited:
Innit. The only zoom I own is the 80-200. I hated my 24-70.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top