How is the macro? Would you say it's an upgrade from Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5G?
1801156
it far more thaan what the word "upgrade" would imply. the two lenses are not from the same planet!
1801157
The Macro can give some fun perspectives foreground to background. As for if it is an upgrade the aperture difference alone is an upgrade as it will allow you to take more pictures with only available light instead of using flash. I love this lens and the glass is great.
659561
I would suggest getting the 105 mm macro if you want a true macro for closeup photography with any Nikon camera. I've used this lens for four years and have been extremely satisfied with sharpness and bokeh. At extreme macro settings, autofocus should be turned off, as it has difficulty searching for focal points. A 1:1 macro ratio is achieved when end of lens is approximately 5 1/2 inches from the subject.
608749
I've owned both. For the obvious, the 17-70 has a more useful FL, while the 17-50 has the constant f/2.8 throughout its range. Physically, the 17-70 takes 72mm filter vs 77mm filters, the weight is lighter by 20% (470g vs 565g) and its a smaller lens which may balance on your APS-C camera better (79mm x 82mm vs 84mm x 92mm). The 17-70 will give you also a psuedo-macro capability at a 1:2.9, which is rather useful. Personally, another point to note (and I've substantiated this myself after coming across it in a few Google blurbs) is that 17mm on the 17-50 is REALLY not 17mm, but 18mm when looked at closely. May not be a deal breaker, but to some it is and the lens really is, in practice, an 18-50 lens. I found the color rendition of the two lenses to be similar (lovely, in fact) and I find the 17-70 to be sharper across the frame at 50mm than the 17-50 is, which is not surprising as that's the farthest reach of the 17-50's FL and it's expected to suffer a tad there. If you haven personally used the new Sigma Contemporary and Art series lenses, I suggest you give them a try. Excellent materials, tight tolerances, well made. I ended up keeping the 17-70f/2.8-4 C and selling the 17-50 f/2.8. I have f/1.8primes to cover the need for low light shooting should it arise, and the extra FL is more important to me
884487
It is an excellent lens, i use it a lot for video, the stabilizer is the best, the macros are impressive, i have a Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite to be a winner.
1846645
I bought, then returned this camera. Look at the D3300 - a newer and better model. I suggest you try out the kit lens for macro shots before you purchase a specific macro lens.
1298995
The K-3 is an upgrade from a K-x, which I'd had for three years. I've been very happy with it. I had considered the K-5IIs, but the improved features of the K-3 swayed me. I'm using the kit lenses that came with my K-x, plus a 50mm 1.4 FA that I already had, though I recently purchased an 18-55mm DA WR so I could gift my K-x with the kit short zoom to my son. I have no immediate plans to purchase more lenses. In fact, having purchased LightRoom at the same time I got the K-3, the quality of images I'm getting from my budget lenses is amazing. The K-3 has wonderful shadow detail which LightRoom pulls out very well. The K-3 is an upgrade from a K-x, which I'd had for three years. I've been very happy with it. I had considered the K-5IIs, but the improved features of the K-3 swayed me. I'm using the kit lenses that came with my K-x, plus a 50mm 1.4 FA that I already had, though I recently purchased an 18-55mm DA WR so I could gift my K-x with the kit short zoom to my son. I have no immediate plans to purchase more lenses. In fact, having purchased LightRoom at the same time I got the K-3, the quality of images I'm getting from my budget lenses is amazing. The K-3 has wonderful shadow detail which... » Read More The K-3 is an upgrade from a K-x, which I'd had for three years. I've been very happy with it. I had considered the K-5IIs, but the improved features of the K-3 swayed me. I'm using the kit lenses that came with my K-x, plus a 50mm 1.4 FA that I already had, though I recently purchased an 18-55mm DA WR so I could gift my K-x with the kit short zoom to my son. I have no immediate plans to purchase more lenses. In fact, having purchased LightRoom at the same time I got the K-3, the quality of images I'm getting from my budget lenses is amazing. The K-3 has wonderful shadow detail which LightRoom pulls out very well. « Show Less
354492
I personally love this lens. But then, I am not trying to photograph bugs with it. My photos are perfect and have caught some great photos of hummingbirds I was shooting recently. I have a Canon T3. It does Macro.
2097650
I personally got the version that came with the 12-50, and it's a great little lens. Can take it out in the rain, does decent macro without having to buy a separate lens, and takes good video.
608745
I have both for my Pentax K-5iis. The 17-70mm practically stays on my camera as I find I need it for its macro abilities as well as the extra reach. I suggested it to a friend who owns a Nikon when she was ready to upgrade from her kit lens and she loves it. I don't feel like f/4 at the longer end of the 17-70mm is limiting for most of my images. I use it outdoors shooting various subjects and indoors at concerts every week. I use the 17-50mm mainly during school classroom events because of its f/2.8, but always wish it had more zoom.
1483057
YES...... I would highly recommend this lens and it is now used as my general lens of choice. To use the macro, it is necessary to stand back further than most lenses but it still produces a very crisp image. The weight of the lens helps to keep the camera steady as it is weighted well making the whole unit more sturdy. So far I have no regrets.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
1114919
If you are really talking about the 18-300mm the older model is bigger and heavier with the same optic specs. The new one, $100 cheaper, has very good image quality and does macro close ups very well. This lens supplements my 150-500mm lens. This lens is 67mm and does not come with a hood. I am very happy with this lens
787434
It can take good macro photos but has some issues attempting that in low light. Get a real macro setup if that's your primary interest.
1462153
Definitely. I own four cameras, three of them more expensive than the G16, yet it is the G-16 that is my go-to camera for macros. It's far ahead of the other cameras I have for this. I have several tripods but have got excellent macro results with bracing as well.
1213468
I bought this kit .. The Tamron .. 70-300 I have come to love this lens . It macro setting are wonderful and is a good telephoto. Now there is no vibration control, but I have seem to work past that. The Auto focus is quick and it can produce some great DOF on you photo. You can check out my photo stream @ https://www.flickr.com/photos/obelis/ for the most part all the photo since I have bought this kit are with both the Tamron and the Nikon that come with this kit. (I have added a 50mm a telephoto 500mm and from time to time use a 1.5x teleconverter) The bag is nice quality, The SD Card is still going strong, The remote works great. The Tripod well it will do in a pinch it not bad, but nothing to write home about. . As for the Flash ..Well I tested it and it works but I have never used. (I try never to use flash and this camera takes great photo in low light.)
1770834
works great for macros! seriously this lens is amazing for the price. You do need to be 2-3 ft away but works and looks awesome!
143450
It wouldn't be my first pick for anything other than macro photography. f/3.5 is pretty slow for indoors (it's like looking into a cave), it isn't a zoom, it doesn't have stabilization, and focus is somewhat slow (comparatively speaking). For portraits, I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8. It's a perfectly keen lens for macro, though; you can take pictures of the tiniest things!