I bought a D50 for my son with the 18-55 kit lens for my son. I, at first, thought this would be too much camera for my son(11 yrs old) but I'm proud to say he has proven me wrong-he has a great eye and an intense interest in photography. He wants a second lens and has save all his Christmas money up( $170 so far). I could kick in another $200 or so. He saw a 55-200 at Ritz( I don't know the brand he looked at) but I mentioned a macro. Does anyone have any experience with a zoom that would cover 55-200( or there abouts) have macro capabilities and be sharp at around $370. Thanks, Jon
If he is looking for a telephoto, 55-200 isn't too bad. But for 370, you could probably pick a Tokina 80-200 F2.8 on eBay. Which is a great lens for that range and its faster aperture will leave him more space to learn. No sure if it has macro though.
The 60mm Micro Nikon is a incredible lens for around that price if memory serves.
Or you can pick up a 28-75 Tamron which has macro and a really fast F2.8 throughout the range.
ecidi wrote:
i second the 60mm micro nikkor. If you want samples from this lens, e-mail me and I will be glad to send you some images taken by this macro lens,
effie
Thanks, I actually own the 60 macro. My son basically wants something to compliment his 18-55, so he wants a 55-200. The macro was my idea and I guess I could loan him the 60mm macro but I wanted to see if anyone had used a zoom(55-200)/macro. For him it would be more convenient to have an "all in one". I have read that you lose something in quality/sharpness with a lens that does many different things. We usually print an image 9x15 on 13x19 paper(epson 1800) so our images aren't going too huge, but I still value sharpness in my prints about all else. Thanks, Jon.
gugs wrote:
A good lens for the money is the 70-300 APO Macro DG from Sigma. Gives you pretty decent performance for the price and macro capabilities (2:1 ratio)
I second that... I had the previous version, 70-300 APO Macro SUPER II. I sold it when I got my 70-200 VR. That was a mistake...
The 200-300mm range is a bit soft, but the 70-200mm range is extremely sharp. Gives my 70-200 VR a goo run for the money (at about 1/8 of its price).
JDeV, I bought my 14 year old daughter the exact same setup. She wanted an SLR for graduating from public school (Huhhhh !! We never had that when I was a kid! Ya'd think they graduated Rhodes Scholars) (Hehehh! but my daughter wiped up in the awards)
I just recently bought her the Nikon 55 - 200 DX, and for such a cheap lens, its not half bad. It will certianly do her for a couple years while she cuts her teeth on the camera! Just havin' a time getting her to move of "AUTO" and on to other program modes. Ah well she will get there.
Oh the reason that I got the 55 - 200 was that the camera tool a dive of a coffee table and the kit lens took the hit for the team. Had it into Nikon Canada the other day, wanted them to check it out, and the service desk guy wisked it in to a tech, who looked it over and 5 minutes later got the thumbs up on camera and sensor. Great service Nikon! Oh got the battery replaced at the same time!
My son uses a 18-70 DX / 70-300 ED combo on his D50. The 70-300 is better at 200 than 300, but it's still fine IMO. I was not concerned with having a 2.8 lens at this point. We are working on tripod technique this year.
I love going on shoots with my son. We wear our Black Lenses with pride.
My son said the lens he's thinking about is the Sigma 55-200. I'll look into the 70-300. I guess I could break down and let him borrow my 60 micro nikkor. By the way bigblue and glidesope, isn't it great to share this with your kids. I made a concerted effort not to interfer when he got the camera by looking over his shoulder while he was shooting, and some of the images he gets(on his own) are great. Thanks to all for the advice/ideas, Jon
