Macro and wide angle lens suggestions?

[Jayati2009]

Hi...I am using Nikon D40. My lenses are 18-55mm, 50mm-f/1.8, 70-300mm VR. I want to buy a macro and a wide angle.
Should I go for .......
105 VR for macro?
12-24mm(Nikkor)/10-20mm(Sigma) for wide angle?[assuming price is not the constraint in this case]

Thank you!

[radityopradipto]

105 VR sounds great for macro, and maybe still useful for some portrait
go for 12-24 for ultra wide because I read on most magazine that 12-24 outperform Sigma by quite big margin...

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Just keep in mind that the D40 (and any DX format camera) won't really be able to go as wide as film or FX due to the crop factor. Regardless, the 12-24 should be helluva lotta fun.

as far as the macro goes, you might want to also take a look at the 85mm. Keep in mind that for macro photography, you'll be close-focussing **manually** for the most part to get that 1:1 reproduction.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Also, didn't Nikon just come out with a cheaper 10-24mm a few months ago?

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

Just keep in mind that the D40 (and any DX format camera) won't really be able to go as wide as film or FX due to the crop factor. Regardless, the 12-24 should be helluva lotta fun.

BS. The Nikon 10-24 (and sigma, tokina and tamron UWA) are a 15mm equivalent: that's 1mm longer than Nikon's 14mm f/2.8 and 14-24 f/2.8. Even those are fairly new for full-frame. DX can get just as wide as FX, it jsut takes some different numbers.

If you're looking at the Nikon 12-24, consider the 10-24 also. Both are excellent lenses, but there are some sacrifices to be made. the 10-24 is wider, but is a f/3.5-4.5 and is a pumping zoom (it moves when zooming). The 12-24 isn't as wide, but is a constant f/4 and doesnt pump.

I've never had a problem with the 3.5-4.5 or the pumping zoom mechanism, and I wanted WIDE.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I was referring to using the same lens on a DX body and a FX body. The 10-24 will give the 35mm equivalent of 15mm on a DX body and the full 10mm on an FX, but regardless, it's all too close to make too much of a difference. Do note my use of the word "as" as in "...won't be able to go as wide as..."

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

I was referring to using the same lens on a DX body and a FX body. The 10-24 will give the 35mm equivalent of 15mm on a DX body and the full 10mm on an FX, but regardless, it's all too close to make too much of a difference. Do note my use of the word "as" as in "...won't be able to go as wide as..."

Youre not explaining yourself clearly. A 10mm lens on DX will give a 15mm FX equivalent. You said that DX cant get as wide as FX, but it clearly can. 10mm on FX isn't possible.

Putting the 10-24 on a FX camera wouldn't work well: you'd either end up with the cropping of the sensor (15mm equivalent) or you'd end up with an image with completely black edges and corners. It's therefore not 10mm on FX because it's useless.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Ah- I forgot to check to see if was a designed-for-DX lens. apologies for the mistake.

I meant something along the lines of the 13mm f/5.6.

though admittedly, I'd have more fun shooting people using that thing that i would actually using it myself.