kiwi314
Senior Member
Hello all! I am looking to buy a lens with macro capability, primarily because we are expecting a baby and I want to be able to take close ups of it's lips, fingers, etc.
I use a Nikon D750 (full frame) and my lenses are as follows:
28mm 1.8 G (Favorite, and probably most used.)
50mm 1.8 G (Like this one as well, but the wider 28 seems to be convenient more often. Used as portrait lens, but would like one better suited.)
70-300 4-5.6 G (Use this a fair amount, but would really like to replace with better telephoto.)
28-80 3-5.6 G (Haven't used this one, it's not even worth it when I have the 28 & 50.)
My husband and I do a lot of traveling, hiking and camping, which finds me grabbing the 28mm the most to capture the scenes. Often I'll keep the 70-300 along for the ride, in case I need to grab a telephoto shot, but it is a poor lens and I would really like to upgrade. But because we are expecting a baby in 2017, I am thinking maybe a macro should come first. My budget is flexible, but obviously the lower price the better. But if it is combo telephoto and macro, i'd be willing to spend more. But I don't want to sacrifice quality zoom just because it may have macro, either. I also would like a better lens for portraits eventually.
I am interested in the 105mm 2.8 - both Nikon (IF-ED) and Sigma's models seem to be good lenses. Which would you say is better? I like the ability they have to focus at close distances, as I imagine I will be doing a lot of simply standing over baby to grab close ups. The other primary uses for macro would probably be food and random items.
I am thinking the 105mm would be good because of macro, decent portrait lens (right?), and mild telephoto, all of which I am in need of. What do you think? Is there a different lens you recommend? Or a combination of lenses?
Thanks for the input!
I use a Nikon D750 (full frame) and my lenses are as follows:
28mm 1.8 G (Favorite, and probably most used.)
50mm 1.8 G (Like this one as well, but the wider 28 seems to be convenient more often. Used as portrait lens, but would like one better suited.)
70-300 4-5.6 G (Use this a fair amount, but would really like to replace with better telephoto.)
28-80 3-5.6 G (Haven't used this one, it's not even worth it when I have the 28 & 50.)
My husband and I do a lot of traveling, hiking and camping, which finds me grabbing the 28mm the most to capture the scenes. Often I'll keep the 70-300 along for the ride, in case I need to grab a telephoto shot, but it is a poor lens and I would really like to upgrade. But because we are expecting a baby in 2017, I am thinking maybe a macro should come first. My budget is flexible, but obviously the lower price the better. But if it is combo telephoto and macro, i'd be willing to spend more. But I don't want to sacrifice quality zoom just because it may have macro, either. I also would like a better lens for portraits eventually.
I am interested in the 105mm 2.8 - both Nikon (IF-ED) and Sigma's models seem to be good lenses. Which would you say is better? I like the ability they have to focus at close distances, as I imagine I will be doing a lot of simply standing over baby to grab close ups. The other primary uses for macro would probably be food and random items.
I am thinking the 105mm would be good because of macro, decent portrait lens (right?), and mild telephoto, all of which I am in need of. What do you think? Is there a different lens you recommend? Or a combination of lenses?
Thanks for the input!
Last edited:
