cheap high quality lens for nikon d200?

Question

i wnat to buy a lens max $300 that is a macro 300mm lens. any good ideas online, i want this to last

Answer 1

Cheap and high quality don't go together.

You might see what KEH camera brokers has in used lenses.

At that focal length it might also make sense to look at an inexpensive telescope that can be adapted to work on your camera, but it won't be auto focus. An example would be the William Optics 66 SD apo. It's got a 388mm focal length, and it's available for about $450.

With lenses or telescopes, apo or apochromats are better, particularly for long focus because they focus the primary colors at about the same spot.

Answer 2

What you ask for doesn't exist for 1:1 macros. A really good macro lens at more than 105mm is going to cost more than $300.

The best you can do is a near macro (less than 1:1 ratio) lens.

For about $109 you can get the Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Macro (it's actually a 1:3.7 magnification, not 1:1) at this place:
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=TM75300LDNA

$160 gets you a 1:2 magnification, link:
http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?omid=122&utm_id=17&ref=pricegrabber&utm_source=PriceGrabber&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TM70300DINA&sku=TM70300DINA

Then for over $300, there's the Tamron 28-300mm series with a 1:3 magnification ratio. It costs more because of the wider zoom range, not because it's better at macro shots.

By comparison, the Nikon Telephoto AF Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D ED-IF Autofocus Lens, a dedicated macro lens that isn't the 300mm you want, costs $1,350.00. And it's worth every penny.

A cheaper alternative would be a close-up lens that screws onto the front of your existing lens, like the Canon 500D or 250D screw-on close up lenses (it'll fit the filter theads of your existing lens, even though it's from Canon). You could also consider extension tubes:
http://cameras.pricegrabber.com/macro-close-up/m/7941256/search=extension%20tubes

Answer 3

Cheap and high quality don't go in the same sentence when it comes to lenses. You can either have a cheap lens or a high quality lens. If you want a lens that will last, I suggest you remove "cheap" from you lens vocabulary.

Your best bet is to look at the used equipment market. I highly recommend KEH.com. They always done well for me. You can get a good 300mm f/4 lens for about $600.00.

As far as macro work, I would recommend you get a set of extension tubes. You can use them to turn any lens into a macro lens,

You can get something cheaper, and it you don't use it a lot, it'll probably last you several years. Or you can get the Nikkor and probably never have to replace it.

Answer 4

Cheap, High Quality, Long Life - you must work for the a government body, Perhaps the Department of Unachievable Expectations.

Lens quality costs, whether the glass components required to give good image quality or the structural elements that will reduce wear etc to give you a long life.

I agree with the earlier comment that there is a major difference between macro and close focus. Most current lenses with a 'macro' setting do no more than achieve a closer focus, and cannot produce a 1:1 or higher image ratio.

Answer 5

"Macro" means you can focus close enough for 1:1 size images. Is that what you're asking for? Macro lenses are used for closeups of flowers, still-lifes, jewelry, and the like.

I'm guessing you want a telephoto 300mm lens that brings far images closer. If so, then you have a couple of choices.

There's the 70-300mm G lens. Economical, but I don't like the build. I had one that was broken, just because someone kicked it. (Hmm, maybe that's a bit much to expect from any lens)

The 70-300mm ED lens looks nice. Within your pricerange, too.

I'm using a Sigma 28-300mm and an older Nikon 75-300mm.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/75300.htm

Here's some results from both. First the Nikon 75-300mm.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-45-Tennessee-31-09-01-2007/DSC_0065_GHYoung.html

And some shots with my Sigma 28-300mm.
http://www.spmsportspage.com/images/college/football/2007/California-42-Louisiana-Tech-12-09-15-2007/DSC_8135_GHYoung.html

I hope this is helpful.

Answer 6

The terms "high quality" and "cheap" are mutually exclusive. Quality optics cost money.

Also, are you looking for a macro lens? The term "macro" has become associated with zoom lens but in reality it should be "close focusing". A true macro lens will give you a 1:1 reproduction ration - life size. A "close-focusing" zoom is usually a 1:4 or 1/4 life size.

Answer 7

I just saw a Hello Kitty camera at Target for about $25. It was made in China, so it has to be high quality.

Answer 8

thank you everyone a question where i agree 1oo% with everyone

as the rest say if you need to hear it again: cheap and good?

a