would i be better with the 18-270 or 90mm if i want macro what one is more versitle
135635
If you want versatility, I'd definitely go with the 18-270 lens. I absolutely love mine. I'd also look at the 16-300 Tamron as well. It's a couple hundred dollars more, but I feel well worth the investment.
135636
If the 90mm is a macro lens, then it should be the one you looking for. 18-270 is not a macro lens. It is a zoom lens. Closest u Can get is about 1 foot maybe.
1686347
thank so much what do you think about the 55mm 2.8what is best deal i have physical limitations due to wheel chair but lve macro concept
2014123
If you can afford it I'd recommend the 17-55mm IS 2.8. This a basically an L quality lens but doesn't carry the L in it's name because it is a EF-S series lens. It is very fast and the sharpness and overall IQ are comparable to the 24-105L IS. The range on the 17-85mm IS is really great and it is about $400 less but the images are softer and the varible aperature starting at 4 will not be nearly as fast. the 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a GREAT walkaround lens and will rarely leave your camera.
1069237
Sharper by a discernible amount. Lighter! Faster focusing. 70-300 maintains a significant advantage in close focusing though. I have both lenses. If you want to shoot bugs and flowers, 70-300 is the way to go. Birds, sports, the moon, 75-300.
1668187
I really like my 16-300 mm Tamron and would recommend it to someone looking to purchase something in that range. That being said, I have never used an 18-270, but, my guess is that you can't get as close or as far with that lens as what I get. But the difference really isn't that much. If it were me and looking to to move up, I'd move up to the Nikon 80 - 400 mm lens. It has what I think is a better glass, and more range. However, you can get a Tamron 150 - 600 mm for about half the price of the mentioned Nikon.
1762795
I'm a previous owner of Tamron's 18-270 vc. The 18-270 was annoyingly noisy when set to auto focus. The benefits of upgrading to Tamron's 16-300 are increased range and quiet pizzio drive. &#538;amron's 16-300 is my new go to all around lens.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
823213
The Nikon 18-200mm would make a good match with your D90. I had owned the Tamron 18-250 for five years and I had it on a D50 and D5000. The 18-270 has updated coatings and I think would serve you well. Check out the Nikon 70-300mm its works great with D90. I would also suggest going to your local retailer and bring your body. Try them out in store.
2004639
I've tried both and I like the 24-70 far better. It is a sharper, faster lens.
1192317
I really like the 18-140. I also have the 55-300. At the time I was researching to purchase a new lens the 18-140 appeared to be the better choice. I went to the Nikon site and did a comparison between the 18-140, 18-200, and 18-300. The 18-140 was new, with the newer technology, lighter, and cheaper. For me, 18-140 focus quickly and it has the range I use most. I usually keep the 55-300 with me, so I'm covered in most situations.
359061
Both are excellent lenses with great IQ. 60mm is cheaper, weatherproof, macro, lighter, thinner, but works well for landscape and portrait too. 75 is amazing esp if you need F1.8, but honestly the 60mm is comparable. I have both..should sell one, but either is hard to part with. You really can't go wrong with either.
1662822
Great for Macro work and I am still experimenting with wide angle views. Best images appear at F/32 and F/45 with a 90mm 1.8 Schneider-Kreuznach , mounted on a Master Technika Linhof 4x5. Hope this helps.
1192320
If you have a 16MP sensor camera or better then go with the 18-140mm. Its sharper than 18-200. Both of them focus quickly. If you have an old camera with less Megapixels then 18-200 will be better because the focal range, unless weight is an issue for you.
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
465320
I would recommend the 17-40mm unless you are really into wide angle nature shots.
464454
To be honest, unless you need 1.4 or the DOF scale, or minimum distortion at 23mm, the 18-55 is going to be better simply because of the IOS. I own this lens and I love it, but it really doesn't provide much over the 18-55, and I actually keep the 18-55 on most of the time unless I am going to do street photography in daylight.
916480
It depends on what you like to shoot. I am a novice to the photography game and I have several lenses in my arsenal. I own the 100mm macro, 17-40mm L, 17-55mm, 70-200mm f4L and the 50mm 1.8. My favorite two are the 100mm macro and the 70-200. Both give me sharp crisp images. I tend not to use the 50mm much any more. If I needed that focal lenght I would chose the 17-55 which is fast, great in low and the images are superb. For a general vacation lens combo, I take the 17-55 and the 70-200mm.