[TyroneMichael]

Hi all,

I dont know if there has been any answers to this question, but Im sure the specifics have not been answered. Anyway, I have the 18-200mm lens, and I honestly want your advice in purchasing a regular 50mm non-zoom lens. Am I going to see much of a difference through portraits landscape etc? Pls forgive me, the 18-200mm lens is the first lens I have owned and I have not had the chance to try another. Some say its a good idea, to have a non-zoom regular lens to get the most out of the camera, but will I be seeing much of a difference when using the 18-200mm lens in quality and sharpness. What would be the differences?

Question 2: I want to get into macro, would 300- 500 dollars worth investing? I know you cant use the 18-200mm for macro since it cannot focus so close-up and loses a considerable amount quality. Or am I wrong. I have tried, but I cannot capture the datail because the lack of focus. I guess what I am asking is, would it be worth getting a macro lens within this price range, to begin off with?

Thank you...

[peteer01]

Whether or not a lens at any price range for macro is worth it is not something someone else can answer for you...but I can let you know what myself and a friend have both done.

We both own a D80 and he's got the Nikon 18-200 VR that you have. He bought himself a 30mm F1.4 Sigma and he thinks it was money very well spent. I decided to buy the Sigma 18-50 2.8F because it has decent macro capabilities and a decent apeture...and I don't really feel like I need a faster lens or better macro...but YMMV.

Either way, if you're able to, I'd suggest trying the lenses out and making a decision based on what you think you need/want and are will to spend.

[Dave]

This should help, as I tested the 2 lenses you mention here :- Budget prime vs Premium Zoom vs Pro Zoom lens

The 18-200mm is hard to beat as a "walkabout" lens, as it covers such a wide focal range. If however you want ultimate optical quality the 50mm f/1.8 is hard to beat. Being so cheap you can afford to have both

[VinnyP]

As has been said the 50mm is amazing value for money with the D200 you wil be producing images of a technical quality that any pro would be proud of. It's a great portrait lens. The fast maximum aperture compared to the 18-200 will give you creative options.

The 50mm on its own will not help with your macro problems; with extension tubes you can go very close but you will lose light and distance focusing.

A macro lens is much easier and more versatile. The nikon 105 VR is supposed to be amazing but at a price. I don't have one since I don't do that much macro work. I do have a sigma 105 which is well within your budget and it is opticaly excellent but not as slick as the Nikon. The tamron 105mm is also very well regarded and would be worth checking out. The Sigma 180mm is higher spec and works at a greater distance but shake can be maginified and depth of field can be an issue. The bonus of a macro is that you gain another prime which can work at lower light than your Nikon zoom.

[TyroneMichael]

Thank you, I truly appreciate the responses. I think I will definitely invest in the 50mm lens and then try save for the macro. People tell me that the 105mm sigma and the 105mm nikon are much on par, except for build quality and AF. The sigma is meant to be quite loud when autofocusing, but I think I will be doing this manually anyway. The nikon is double the price of the sigma. You think its worth it? Much of a difference in quality?

[VinnyP]

I would hope the Nikon would also shave the Sigma optically but it's diminishing returns the Sigma is a very sharp lens and probably capable of outresolving the sensor so it wouldn't make muich of a difference where the Nikon will win out as you say is speed and silence of AF. It may also be more rugged but the Sigma is well built. The Nikon also has VR which should make a big difference to handheld shots but many users have said it makes little difference at the macro end. If you buy mail order and are careful you can try a number of lenses then return to see what suits.

[sejanus]

If the VR implementation in the 18~200 is anything like as good as in the Coolpix S10, then I'd go for it. Would you believe an acceptably sharp handheld 1 second exposure?