Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 166720" data-attributes="member: 13090">I think you need to define if you mean macro in the true sense of the word, or if you mean "closeup". Reason being is that true macro photography means not just filling the frame with your subject but shooting at 1:1,  and that pretty much requires a dedicated lens. For true macro I'd want something in the 100mm range like Nikon's f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro, an $800 lens. If I just wanted frame filling closeups I could achieve that with a good 200mm zoom lens at a fraction of the cost.My current lens arsenal is comprised of the following: Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6: This is a real jack-of-all-trades lens that rarely needs to come off my 7100. This is my, "If I could only have one lens..." lens.Nikon 35mm f/1.8G: This is my primary indoor lens. I'll use flash if I have to but I prefer to avoid it and this lens helps me do that. Very versatile outdoors as well but rarely sees daylight.Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: My ultra-wide for landscapes and such. Very sharp, very fast, very wide. Perfect! Loads of fun to shoot with but also the most difficult lens I have to use effectively. Nikon 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6: Soon to be replaced by the Nikon 70-300mm. For those times you need some extra reach. Most people gravitate toward the big zooms but this is the the least-used lens of the lot. The more photography I do the more I find myself gravitating towards wider, faster primes and wide-to-moderate zooms....</blockquote>

Verification