Enthusiastic beginner

Donk1166

Donk1166

Suspended / Banned
Messages
111
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

As the title suggests I'm just a beginner in the world DSLR photography. Common sense is limiting my budget so I have to be careful what I spend. My camera is a Nikon D5100 with a kit lens (18-55). At the moment I'm enjoying scenery shots & I'd like to get into macro stuff.

Here's the dilemma..

I can afford ONE new lens for now!! Do I get a good value zoom (& try a close up lens for macro) or get a good value macro lens?
Emphasis is on 'good value' as I won't be spending more than £300 (if that!!).

Any ideas people???
 
Well if you go down the macro route then something like a good used Tamron 90 f2,8 would be a decent option and well within budget.
As for a zoom then again a good used Nikon 70-300 vr would be within reach.
Personally I would go for the more versatile zoom first and add a macro lens at a later date.
 
If I were in your position I would think about some sort of training or course first, or maybe a couple of hours with a local pro - maybe a camera club might be of use ?
That way you will learn a huge amount, may be shown loads that might otherwise take years to pick up and you may have enough left over for a basic set of close-up extension tubes should macro be something you want to explore further. Second hand gear is well worth looking into especially here as most people seem to really look after their gear !
 
Luckily I've got a good friend who is semi pro so he'd take me out for some tips.

I think I'm leaning more towards the zoom option. Mainly because I've seen some awesome macro work done with tubes on here & they seem good value as a later addition
 
My advice would be to get a good 50mm prime (i think the new Nikon ones are about £150ish arent they?) and then spend a little more on cheap AF extension tubes (the polaroid ones seem to be best value for money at the moment) so you can use the 50mm for macro to try it out. That way you'll have picked up a lens that you'll always want to have in your camera bag and you'll have the option to try macro out without breaking the bank.
 
Could I use the tubes on my 18-55 kit lens? I could see what I think of the results, if they're any good then the money could on a 55-300 zoom or similar
 
Yep the tubes will work on a zoom, but can be a bit tricky as a slight, even tiny accidental adjustment of the zoom will probably put you out of focus (hence why primes are best for tubes). But if you zoomed all the way to 55 and made sure it stayed there it's a great way to try out macro. They don't degrade the image quality at all (say compared to a Raynox magnifying accessory) as it just moves the lens away from the camera body to achieve greater magnification. Would definitely say try them before purchasing a proper macro
 
How about these 'Close Up Filters'? They seem a good option for money.. if they work!!
 
I've toyed with the idea of using them but never have - as I mentioned, as they add extra glass to the front of your lens they will degrade the image. But even so lots of people get excellent images with them. To be honest, tubes or the magnifying filters will be a good intro to macro, I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed with either. Best spend the majority of your money on decent glass that covers what you know you will use the lens for the majority of the time. If it's a long zoom ( ie you want nature/sports shots couple with a ability for long range portraits), that's a good choice
 
I might give them a go, there's a Polaroid set on amazon for £12. That way I can see if I like working in macro. If I don't then I haven't spent £400+ on a macro lens!

I'll let you know how they work out
 
Donk1166 said:
I might give them a go, there's a Polaroid set on amazon for £12. That way I can see if I like working in macro. If I don't then I haven't spent £400+ on a macro lens!

I'll let you know how they work out
Click to expand...

I've got a set and they work really well, don't use them any more though as I don't have a lens they fit on :lol:
 
Does the £12 set have AF? I'd recommend getting a set that can do that over cheaper MF versions - makes macro life a lot easier if you're working handheld. When I bought my Polaroid AF ones off amazon last year they were about £40, off the top of my head
 
Donk1166 said:
I might give them a go, there's a Polaroid set on amazon for £12. That way I can see if I like working in macro. If I don't then I haven't spent £400+ on a macro lens!

I'll let you know how they work out
Click to expand...

Spend a bit more and get either a Raynox DCR-250 or 150 (£40, Amazon) depending on how close you want to go. They are both close-up supplementary lenses, but much higher quality. Will work fine on your lens at the long end. Have a look at the Raynox Flickr group http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/

BTW, extension tubes do degrade image quality, or rather they take the lens so far away from its optimum operating range that it won't perform as well.
 
HoppyUK said:
BTW, extension tubes do degrade image quality, or rather they take the lens so far away from its optimum operating range that it won't perform as well.
Click to expand...

That's a little misleading, I know what you're saying, but to say that using a lens outside its optimum apertures etc (usually f8ish) degrades image quality isn't really completely true, at least in the same way Raynoxs degrade images. I mean you're effectively saying that shooting at f16 (usually a nice aperture size for macro at that focal length) degrades image quality.

You can always use a lens at optimum settings with extension tubes and you'd have no degradation of image quality. You just wouldn't have much of a depth of field.
 
why not a 35mm f1.8 and a 2nd hand 40mm micro?

im sure they are within your budget altogether.

edit: the macro filters are a good way to start with and although the pictures will get soften but nothing you can't handle it.

the extension tube shouldn't degrade the IQ since there isn't any glass inside, the only downside is that you properly will have to or only be able to use manual focus.

a nikon 50-200mm f4-5.6 VR with some extension tube will be a good investment in my opionion, the lens produce sharp images and its really cheap(around £100 2nd hand).
 
Last edited:
hiphopopotamus said:
That's a little misleading, I know what you're saying, but to say that using a lens outside its optimum apertures etc (usually f8ish) degrades image quality isn't really completely true, at least in the same way Raynoxs degrade images. I mean you're effectively saying that shooting at f16 (usually a nice aperture size for macro at that focal length) degrades image quality.

You can always use a lens at optimum settings with extension tubes and you'd have no degradation of image quality. You just wouldn't have much of a depth of field.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that. I meant the normal focusing range. Lenses are normally optimised for much greater distances than macro range and forcing them to work very close with tubes means they will be not be at their best.

Some lenses take to it better than others, but if adding tubes made no difference to optical performace there would be no need to manufacture macro lenses.
 
Ah sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. Surely it only introduces an increase in magnification so is a relatively tiny degradation in comparison to what extra glass at the end of the lens? I hadn't actually realised this was the case, I may be wrong again, just trying to work out what could cause degradation
 
hiphopopotamus said:
Ah sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. Surely it only introduces an increase in magnification so is a relatively tiny degradation in comparison to what extra glass at the end of the lens? I hadn't actually realised this was the case, I may be wrong again, just trying to work out what could cause degradation
Click to expand...

Yes, tubes generally give better results than adding extra glass to the front as with any kind of supplementary close up lens. I'm just picking up on the idea that tubes cannot degrade optical quality because there's nothing in them, when tubes do - by dramatically changing the way the lens is required to work. In much the same way that zooms perform differently at different focal lengths, and so-called macro focusing zooms are notorious for being relatively poor at very close range.

Then on the other hand, the little Raynoxes seem to be particularly good as far as supplementary close up lenses go, cheaper than tubes and very easy to use. They're optical triplets, not just simple meniscus diopters like those rather poor e-bay sets.
 
It's all getting very technical now but I think I get the jist of it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top