Which Macro Lens for Nikon?

[Riverhound777]

I'm looking to pick up a macro lens as a self birthday present. Use will be mostly insects, flowers, other cool up close shots. My budget is $1000 but obviously lower is better. Here are the ones i'm looking at so far:

Nikon 85mm
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-85mm-3-5...8276952&sr=8-1

Tamron 90mm
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90mm...8275460&sr=8-3

Nikon 105mm
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-105mm-2-...8275460&sr=8-1

Leaning towards the Tamron at this point as best bang for the buck. Any other recommendations or views? This will be used with my D3100.

 

[Anubis]

whats the 200 f/4 cost today? i suspect out of your budget

i have the Nikon 105 non VR no real complaints other then AF is slow as hell, but i hardly use it in AF

the sigma 150mm is also very well liked and fits in your budget. IMO a longer lens makes macro work much easier. more room to play with


http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150mm-Ma.../dp/B00063KO52

reviews for the non IF version but the quality shoudl basically be the same
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=280&sort=7&cat=38&page=1

the tamron 180 is also an option

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AERK6/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=188&sort=7&cat=44&page=1

 

[Riverhound777]

I didn't think that much zoom would help, but after playing around with my 55-200, I can see what you mean. I think 150mm would be pretty good, but the Sigma seems out of my price range. The Tamron looks like a pretty good deal with a $50 rebate right now, though I'm a bit concerned about the size.

 

[fralexandr]

i don't think the tamron has image stabilization, which would make hand-held shots more difficult i would think

one of my professors uses the nikon 105mm micro afs and has a nice ring flash setup
it's pretty cool

 

[jpeyton]

Nikon 105VR.

Used it shouldn't be more than $800.

 

[twistedlogic]

Leaning towards the Tamron at this point as best bang for the buck.

The Tamron would be the best bang for the buck and offer excellent optics, just beware that there is two different models of these, one w/ a motor and one w/o a motor, so only one will AF on your D3100.

Do you own a decent tripod? Speedlight? If you own both of them I would choose either the Nikon 105VR or Bumga 150, depending on how far of a working distance you need.

 

[Anubis]

bumga = sigma?

 

[Riverhound777]

The Tamron would be the best bang for the buck and offer excellent optics, just beware that there is two different models of these, one w/ a motor and one w/o a motor, so only one will AF on your D3100.

Do you own a decent tripod? Speedlight? If you own both of them I would choose either the Nikon 105VR or Bumga 150, depending on how far of a working distance you need.

I have a tripod (Dolica Proline), no speedlight.

 

[Riverhound777]

What about just getting an Extension Tube set for my 55-200?

 

[CptObvious]

I have a Tamron 60 macro, and while it doesn't have as much working distance as the lenses you mentioned, it's easier to handhold without camera shake (due to the shorter focal length). Also it doubles as a pretty good portrait lens on crop sensor.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Extension tubes are ok but not really a good substitute. You have to do all kinds of jacking around to set the aperture. It really takes the fun out of taking macro shots. If you're on an extreme budget, or travelling with a lightweight kit and don't want to drag around yet another heavy lens just for macro, then yes, extension tubes make sense.

If this is intended to be a dedicated macro lens, IMO you should find an older, non-VR, Nikon 105mm. Even an old manual focus one would be ok. AF isn't really that handy in macro anyway. You set the focus and then move back and forth to get the subject in focus.

Really though, the circa 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens has been around a long time and has pretty much been perfected. The Sigma/Tamron/etc. variants leave very little to be desired optically. It is the "features" (ring USM focus motor, VR/IS, etc.) that make the difference between the name brands and the off-brands. If the 85mm VR were f/2.8 then I would say go for that one. f/3.5 is just not quite up to par though, IMO.

When it comes to non-dedicated-macro use, a 100mm/2.8 is also handy in low-light telephoto, and the 100mm Macros usually have nice bokeh for portraits and the like. I have the Canon 100/2.8 and like it a lot. Of course I would love to have the new Image Stabilized version, but not at twice the price.

I guess I would better be able to answer if I knew the answers to these questions:

1) What other lenses do you have already?
2) What kind of photos do you normally take?
3) Do you have a strong desire to do macro photography, or is it just something you're kind of interested in?

 

[iGas]

Sigma 150mm, or Sigma 150mm OS.

The Sigma 150mm macro are practically identical to name brand 100mm to 200mm optics at f/8~f/11 for macro works (slightly sharper than the Nikon 105 micro). Wide open it is it is virtually the same as the Canon macro lenses, and beat the Nikon micro lenses.

Nikon 200mm micro f/4.0 vs. Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro

 

[Riverhound777]

I guess I would better be able to answer if I knew the answers to these questions:

1) What other lenses do you have already?
2) What kind of photos do you normally take?
3) Do you have a strong desire to do macro photography, or is it just something you're kind of interested in?

1) Currently I have the 18-55, 55-200 Nikons, and a 50mm 1.8 Prime.
2) I take a lot of close up flower, bug, random object shots. I can upload some examples when I get home if you wish.
3) I really enjoy the Macro stuff I've done so far, but feel limited. I find myself wishing I was able to focus closer.

Here is one example I posted in the pic of the day thread a while back.

As for the Sigma 150mm iGas, It looks fine. But the cheapest I see it for is $1099, I would sure hope its as good as name brand.

At this point I still have no idea what lens to get.

 

[twistedlogic]

bumga = sigma?

Yup

If the 85mm VR were f/2.8 then I would say go for that one. f/3.5 is just not quite up to par though, IMO.

It's only 2/3rds a stop, and that's only compared to any other 2.8 macro shot at or near infinity, once you start focusing closer your aperture gets smaller. Besides, 95% of macro shots are stopped down.

There is also the new 40mm Macro that would double for a nice walk-around lens. I've read of one photographer who preferred it to the new 35 1.8 because the optics are much more resistant to CA and flare. Only problem is the working distance is so small, leaving little room for light and scaring away critters.

1) Currently I have the 18-55, 55-200 Nikons, and a 50mm 1.8 Prime.

With your current equipment you could mount the Nikon BR-2A to the front of your 55-200 and reverse mount your 50mm 1.8 giving you 4X magnification, or 4X closer than any current Nikon micro lens without using extension tubes. Fun and cheap way to get started.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

It's only 2/3rds a stop, and that's only compared to any other 2.8 macro shot at or near infinity, once you start focusing closer your aperture gets smaller. Besides, 95% of macro shots are stopped down.

Yeah I know. The f/2.8 makes it more useful in non-macro situations, though. It becomes a low-light telephoto (probably with a good 1-stop advantage vs. the 55-200 at 100mm) as a bonus. I know I used my 100/2.8 for that purpose quite a bit before I got the 85/1.8. In macro situations though, you want all the DOF you can get; I'm usually at f/11 or f/16 if there's enough light.

OP, since you are already kind of dabbling into macro, I would say that it makes sense to get one of the more expensive lenses if you can afford it. The 105mm VR will do double-duty (as discussed above) and probably have the highest optical quality (although as I said before, macro lenses tend to be very high quality to begin with, and even the off-brands are quite good optically). Any macro lens that you buy will be a step up from the quality (build quality and optical quality) of the lenses you already have, though.

It is hard to say... it's hard to spend someone else's money. If I had your body and lenses, and $1000 to spend on lenses, I'd probably go for a cheaper macro ($300-$500 range) and pick up a wide-angle lens as well; plus (if I had $200 left) the 35mm f/1.8. But that's just me; I love wide-angle, so that's more my focus (no pun intended) vs. macro. (And while the 50/1.8 is great, you still need a fast normal prime.) But the 105mm VR would sure be a sweet lens to own, and f/2.8 with VR might make you put aside your 55-200.

 

[Riverhound777]

It is hard to say... it's hard to spend someone else's money. If I had your body and lenses, and $1000 to spend on lenses, I'd probably go for a cheaper macro ($300-$500 range) and pick up a wide-angle lens as well; plus (if I had $200 left) the 35mm f/1.8. But that's just me; I love wide-angle, so that's more my focus (no pun intended) vs. macro. (And while the 50/1.8 is great, you still need a fast normal prime.) But the 105mm VR would sure be a sweet lens to own, and f/2.8 with VR might make you put aside your 55-200.

Lol, you're making this even harder! I'd also been looking at the 10-20mm Sigma. The 90mm Tamron and Sigma would make nice additions to my collection for the price of the Nikon 105mm

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Lol, you're making this even harder! I'd also been looking at the 10-20mm Sigma. The 90mm Tamron and Sigma would make nice additions to my collection for the price of the Nikon 105mm

Well that's what I'd do, certainly (although I'm not completely up to date on the best choices for crop body ultrawides, so don't quote me on the Sigma). People have been doing macro photography with lenses pretty much exactly like the 90mm Tamron for as long as there have been macro SLR lenses. The new VR/IS augmented macro lenses just came out a couple of years ago -- they are literally the latest and greatest. You can certainly "get by" with the Tamron or a similar lens (including an older, non-VR 105mm Nikkor) -- until a couple of years ago, there was literally no better option (except for the longer 150mm/180mm macros, which tend to be significantly more expensive, and quite a bit larger and heaver).

 

[iGas]

1) Currently I have the 18-55, 55-200 Nikons, and a 50mm 1.8 Prime.
2) I take a lot of close up flower, bug, random object shots. I can upload some examples when I get home if you wish.
3) I really enjoy the Macro stuff I've done so far, but feel limited. I find myself wishing I was able to focus closer.

Here is one example I posted in the pic of the day thread a while back.

As for the Sigma 150mm iGas, It looks fine. But the cheapest I see it for is $1099, I would sure hope its as good as name brand.

At this point I still have no idea what lens to get.

I'm sorry. I didn't know the Sigma 150mm macro is discontinued, however you should be able to find a good used one for less than $700. $1100 is for the new 150mm OS version (optical stabilization, similar to VR).

 

[jhansman]

I lust after the Nikon micro 105mm 2.8 VR, but can't pull together the cash for it. Those who own it tell me is it outstanding. $900 at B&H Photo.

 

[Riverhound777]

I decided to go with the Tamron 90mm. I can always return it if i'm not happy. I think the size and price, as well as having a built-in focus motor make it the best choice for me. Plus now I have money left over if I want to buy another lens.

 

[Krioni]

A humble opinion here... Spend the money on a good set of auto extension tubes and work with those first.

I got some for <$200 and love them. They provide tons of flexibility and great quality.

 

[iGas]

A humble opinion here... Spend the money on a good set of auto extension tubes and work with those first.

I got some for <$200 and love them. They provide tons of flexibility and great quality.

Might as well get Fotodiox Nikon Macro Extension Tube for $8, or built yourself one using a cheap body cap and a plumbing mechanical clamp or a piece of black paper.

Or, Fotodiox reverse ring for as little as $8.

Reversing Lenses for Macro Photography