Next Lens (Nikon D90)

I currently have the kit lens that came with the D90 (18-105mm VR). It holds me in pretty good stead for now.
As I continue to get more serious and think about what subjects I know I want to do more of, one is certainly macro/micro work. Shooting stills/very close-ups for my artisan cheese blog but I'd also like to experiment with plants, insects etc very close up. Depth of field stuff.

Distance is (probably?) not an issue.

The other is candid portraits. I struggle catching the detail I want currently but am still very novice.

Third is low-light work, non-flash. (Shooting food in low-light restaurant settings for example, often without a stand/tripod)

Is a lens such as this moving in the right direction?

Can you help me understand the qualitative differences between this versus this (other than VR)?

Other alternatives?

Hi Chris, i think you may need more than 1 lens!! but you seem more interested in close up stuff so id start with a 105 micro, i have the nikon 2.8 and it is nice and should be ok for low light it has VR so that will help as well, For candid i tend to use something longer myself. The Sigma 105 is sposed to be good as well but is more expensive than the Nikon. If its not long enough for your candid stuff borrow something longer or hire until you find the length that works for you and then buy something of that length that you can afford

Good luck!

Mark

Thanks Mark- I definitely have a need/higher interest for the close-up work.

You're referring to this one?

Hey Chris,
I have the same Nikkor 105mm Macro lens that Mark was suggesting and I agree with him completely. I really like the VR feature as it allows me some forgiveness when shooting without a tripod. At 105mm it also allows me to be a little further away from my subject which is very helpful when shooting insects especially ones that bite, sting or poke.
Good luck and happy shooting!

Thanks Pepper.

The $900 price tag is out of my range right now but all the reviews seem to praise it.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fit

Thanks Pepper.

The $900 price tag is out of my range right now but all the reviews seem to praise it.

:)

---

What about the Nikon 85mm f/3.5 macro lens. With your crop factor it should be long enough for most general macro shots and should be fast enough for most portrait shots. I think it's less than half the price of the 105mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldcoastgolfer

What about the Nikon 85mm f/3.5 macro lens. With your crop factor it should be long enough for most general macro shots and should be fast enough for most portrait shots. I think it's less than half the price of the 105mm.

---

That's one of the two I linked to in my first post. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fit

That's one of the two I linked to in my first post. ;)

---

Oops! I was skimming before work. IMHO the 40mm is going to be too short for insect work but you should get away with the 85mm. I use a 70mm on D7000 with a reproduction ratio of 1:2.7 and manage to get some reasonable insect shots. The longer the better with insects but you'll be able to do it with the 85mm and you'll want a greater depth of field for bugs so the slightly slower lens won't hamper you there. Just attached a photo so you can see what macro photos from a pseudo macro lens looks like at 70mm - it's cropped obviously as the lady bird was about 1/8 of an inch long.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-I...0/GCG_2949.jpg

I would assume that if you're taking photos macro photos of cheese you'll still need a reasonable DoF - I would have thought f/2.8 might be getting a bit thin for food shots so I think the 85mm will be a better bet than the 40mm. 85mm is also probably a better length for portraits than 40mm.

Is there any reason you wouldn't use a tripod with your low light food work?

I'd vote for the 105mm, but I do get your point on pricing. You have to think about your priorities I guess, if micro is very important to you the longer range of the 105mm will give you some advantage.
I love the lens, very sharp and the VR does help.

Love CiC - thanks for the feedback. I'm really liking the 105 based on the universal praise across the innerwebz and the photo examples I'm seeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldcoastgolfer

Is there any reason you wouldn't use a tripod with your low light food work?

---

Only the more candid stuff shot during events etc where a tripod is to invasive. When shooting stuff I set up at home, I use a Joby etc. Thanks again!

alternatives? the Tamron 90 f2.8 the Tamron 60 f2 both faster than the Nikon 85 f3.5 and Nikon 40 f2.8. The Tammy 60 looks a nice portrait lens as well.

the Nikon 105 f2.8 is meant to be a corker see a review here http://bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm and check out the Tamron review at the end.

I own a sigma 150 f2.8 love it.

One that hasn't been mentioned is the Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX DG macro. Seems to get good reviews so may be worth a look.