Any word on the new Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED lens ???

[acorral]

I am moving from point and shot to a DSLR with the Nikon D7100 and I am considering this lens:


Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom

Would it allow me to take nice macro-ish photos of my corals? Or I need a dedicated macro lens?

Thanks for the input !!!

[Misled]

Originally Posted by acorral

macro-ish

That's not a word.

Or I need a dedicated macro lens?

Thanks for the input !!!

That would be prudent.

[BCasper]

Originally Posted by acorral

Would it allow me to take nice macro-ish photos of my corals? Or I need a dedicated macro lens?

Thanks for the input !!!

That particular lens does have an ok macro feature, but there are better lenses for shooting macro. I would suggest maybe a Sigma 90mm f1.8, or if you want to spend the extra money (arguably not better glass) you could get a Nikkor 100mm f1.8. The biggest advantage to a macro vs a telephoto is the focus range. I'm not 100% sure, but I would guess the 18-300 has a focus length of around 4 meters. That's not really close enough for true macro. The other issue you may face with the 18-300 is the inability to stop down small enough to get the look you may desire (Shallow Depth of Field). You may also find that you have to push the ISO a little bit in order to get good exposures leading to grain in your photos.

Here is a little food for thought. The D7100 is a crop body (without going into too much detail that means you can shoot smaller glass with the same range that a full frame sensor produces) so getting a 90mm dedicated macro lens is essentially shooting the same as a 110mm on a full frame body. Now I know the gear heads and Nikkor Nazi's will shoot me for saying this, but you don't need to spend the extra money. It's obviously your call, but IMO I think you will be much happier with a dedicated macro.

[acorral]

Originally Posted by BCasper

That particular lens does have an ok macro feature, but there are better lenses for shooting macro. I would suggest maybe a Sigma 90mm f1.8, or if you want to spend the extra money (arguably not better glass) you could get a Nikkor 100mm f1.8. The biggest advantage to a macro vs a telephoto is the focus range. I'm not 100% sure, but I would guess the 18-300 has a focus length of around 4 meters. That's not really close enough for true macro. The other issue you may face with the 18-300 is the inability to stop down small enough to get the look you may desire (Shallow Depth of Field). You may also find that you have to push the ISO a little bit in order to get good exposures leading to grain in your photos.

Here is a little food for thought. The D7100 is a crop body (without going into too much detail that means you can shoot smaller glass with the same range that a full frame sensor produces) so getting a 90mm dedicated macro lens is essentially shooting the same as a 110mm on a full frame body. Now I know the gear heads and Nikkor Nazi's will shoot me for saying this, but you don't need to spend the extra money. It's obviously your call, but IMO I think you will be much happier with a dedicated macro.

Thank you !!!

Can't seem to find the sigma you are talking about... are you sure it's f1.8? or is it f2.8?

I was thinking about the Tokina 100 f2.8... bit more expensive than the Sigma but with great reviews...

[Misled]

Nikon 105 2.8
Tamron 90 2.8
Sigma 105 2.8

I've owned all three. I'd put them in that order from top down. Can't vouch for the Tokina, but I've only heard good stuff.