planning to get a new lense. budget of rm 1000 only. prefer prime lense. nikon mount. what to get ah? to all the pros out here.

get 55-200vr...compliments the kit lens...=)
price less then 1k...

50mm but dont u have tht? or top up abit to get a macro if u're interested in it.

RM1000 for a good prime really quite hard (except the 50mm of coz),

top up a little bit get either 85mm f1.8 for portrait or Tamron SP90 for macro

Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro?? :D

yeah i got the 50mm prime already

was thinking to get a 85mm f1.8 nikkor. used 1 of course. my second choice will be tamron sp90

i got a telephoto already

prime medium tele ??

Prime or Medium Telephoto ?

if u are interested with 18-135 u can pm me

prime medium tele. i dowan prime telephoto.

oh thanks

I wonder why ppl nowadays so particular with the word 'portrait' & 'macro'.

so? u have any better suggestions?

Any lens which has short minimum focus distance can be use to shoot macro.
Only difference would be magnification & sharpness (which is hardly visible for 8R & below).

Any lens which can produce sufficient bokeh can be use to shoot portrait. Why 85mm & 100mm or 105mm are usually called portrait lens?

It's bcos the focal length in original FF gives a comfortable & desirable distance between the photographer & model. So that both won't feel awkward or shy.

Anyhow, if you want the best of both world for under RM1k, I'd suggest the Tokina AT-X M100 AF Pro D (used) or its earlier variants.

how bout 30mm sigma f1.4 HSM? seems a very good lense

After focal length conversion in dSLR, it becomes 45mm.
Neither here nor there.

say we put the focal length aside. is this a good lense? paying only rm 1000+ for a F1.4 HSM. btw i edited the title

This post has been edited by scotty: May 10 2007, 05:10 PM

why would u want a f1.4 55, when u alreay have that 50mm prime?
1.4 and 1.8.... would it seriously make a Rm1000 difference to ur shots?

scorgio: Since scotty is using a D40, that would mean fully manual right for this lens ?

I don't know what body Scotty's using now.

But he did post up "[wtb] nikkor 85mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 or tamron sp90 macro" at another photography related forum. Which none of them has a built in focusing motor.

So back to your question. For D40/D40x, any lens without AF-S or HSM would only give you manual focus.

'Normal' lenses can hardly reach 1:2 or 1:1 magnification by themselves. Closeup filters enable that but at a cost of image distortion and softness, and expansion tubes disable infinity and long-range focus and maybe autofocus (for some models).

Macro lenses are also optimised for close-range sharpness and contrast. 'Normal' lenses may be sharp and contrasty in their intended usage range but are usually at their poorest at the extreme ends of focus or zoom.

DOF of macro lenses are usually corrected to be flat rather than curved compared to 'normal' lenses. So when you use a 'normal' lens to focus at its minimum focal distance perpendicular to a flat test subject (eg. note of money or printed page), usually only the centre area is sharp and it gets progressively softer towards the extremities.

Macro lenses also may or may not be substitutes for general usage telephoto or primes. Their sharpness may be subpar at any range other than close range, and usually if they have in-built focussing motors, they are among the slowest motors.