Micro lens for D90

[kaibeau]

Want to get a micro lens for my D90. Budget conscious. Can't decide between the 105/2.8 AF or the 105/2.8VR model.
Any advice please would b much appreciated.

[arthurking83]

If you are budget conscious, then I think that a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 would better suit you.

If VR(or Optical Stabilization) is more important then either the Nikon of Sigma 105mm's will be a better option, and also consider the Sigma 150mm OS Macro lens too.

I think it all depends on wht type of macro images you want to pursue.

If you want to chase insects around the yard, then an OS feature will be very handy.
If it's static images, at real macro levels, then any of the lenses will offer decent IQ, but get an extremely sturdy tripod to work with.


Depending on what other lenses you already have, another budget conscious option would be the use of extension tubes. You want to use extension tubes with caution tho, don't just use them on any ol lens and expect high quality images.

FWIW: I have the Nikon 105VR, and I don't think it's the best lens of it's genre.
I've also used the Tammy 90mm and for the money, it's a better lens. I'd have go one of them, except for the fact that I wanted optical stabilisation back then.
I've also used the Sigma 150mm, and I think this is the better lens than the Nikon 105. Besides the point that it's 150mm and hence gives you longer working distances, the IQ of this lens seemed just that little bit nicer(tho I've never directly compared them... one day when I get the opportunity I'd love to do that.


So, if money is the deciding factor, the Tammy 90mm is the best option, being available for about $300 on the most of the online grey stores.
Sigma 150mm OS would be my next choice given a budget of up to about $1K. Nikon 105VR will provide good images and it's a great lens in terms of the way it renders images, just not as acute in the way I expected it to capture fine detail.

[kaibeau]

Hi Thanks for the advice. I am into more static but my husband who is learning, likes the insects etc. So I'm thinking that the VR would probably help him. We are probably a little time poor so prob a bit of hand held shooting required.

[WhoDo]

If you are budget conscious then you won't go past the Tokina AT-X Pro 100 D on price. They can be had for under $500 and the reviews place them as good as or better than the Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron equivalents. I will be buying one myself in the very near future, so I've read all there is to read on this glass and I am truly, if not easily, impressed.

[AnthonyIneffable]

If you are budget conscious then you won't go past the Tokina AT-X Pro 100 D on price. They can be had for under $500 and the reviews place them as good as or better than the Nikkor, Sigma and Tamron equivalents. I will be buying one myself in the very near future, so I've read all there is to read on this glass and I am truly, if not easily, impressed.

I have read the same thing. The Tokina seems to be the best for everything except bokeh quality. I have not actually used the Tokina 100. The Tamron 90mm is available much cheaper though and it outresolves the D90 sensor - so no point going for anything sharper for now. The Tamron has no distrortion. It has more chromatic aberration than the Tokina or Nikkor. it has very nice bokeh. The main problem is that it has slow autofocus. It is one of the most widely used macro lenses around. Just another option.

[Allie]

Another vote for the Tamron 90mm - great portrait lens too!

[Epoc]

Tammy 90mm here as well. AF is rarely used for Macro anyways, so slow AF is not a problem.

[kaibeau]

Think i'm decided on the 90mm Tamron. Thanks all for your help

[geoffsta]

+1 for the 90mm as well.

[ricktas]

I would say the Sigma 150 if insects are a favoured subject. Some insects are biters and having a bit more reach means you are not getting right in their faces to take the shots. Giving you a bit of space between you and the subject. I have the Sigma 150 and it is better than the Tammy 90 (which I sold).

[kaibeau]

Thanks

[levers55]

Hi kaibeau, if I remember correctly the VR on the 105 f2.8 doesn't operate at the macro end of the focus range. But I could be mistaken.

I've I get good results with the VR 105 2.8 but can't compare it to others I'm afraid.

[arthurking83]

Hi kaibeau, if I remember correctly the VR on the 105 f2.8 doesn't operate at the macro end of the focus range. But I could be mistaken.

......

Yeah, it does, but it's not as effective as it is in the non macro range.

Of course there is debate as to what constitutes 'macro range' as some folk consider it to be between 1:1 and 1:3, whereas the actual definition of macro is from 1:1 and higher(magnification).

I've got the 105VR, and whilst VR is useful, you wouldn't rely on it once you get close to the 1:1 range .. it's just another option you have at your disposal to effect a sharp image if you are shooting handheld.
Better lighting options(ie. powerful speedlights, or macro flash rings, etc) is where your efforts should be invested if handheld macro photography is something you wish to pursue.

So as an example of how you would set yourself up using this as a guide:
Instead of getting a more expensive lens with optical stabilisation, you would choose a well reknown lens that is initially less expensive, and use the price savings to acquire a flash of some type too.

practical examples using real equipment:
option A: Nikon 105VR Mico .. cost approx $800.00 .... give or take a few
option B: Tamron 90mm(non VC) + Nikon SB700 ... cost approx $600 (or $800 with the SB910) .... also giving or take a few.

Tamron is a great lens, and is at least 95% as capable as the Nikon(if not actually better in macro usage), but the addition of a flash helps to achieve images where thy may be less possible with a lens only.

Note too tho, that there exists a 90mm Tamron macro lens that also has optical stabilisation and is far more expensive than the older non stabilised version. Where talking about the cheaper non stabilised version here.

[RubyKatz]

Would the Tamron 90mm also work on a D7000?

[I @ M]

Would the Tamron 90mm also work on a D7000?

Absolutely.

[Epoc]

Just ends up 135mm instead of 90

[ricktas]

Just ends up 135mm instead of 90

Oh no. Don't start that one. A lens is 90mm no matter what it is on. The numbers on the lens barrel do not magically change based on the camera it is attached to. The field of view changes, not the lens!

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...vs_Crop_Factor

[Epoc]

Ok, 135mm reach then. Obviously, the lens doesn't change it is still a 90mm lens. As the poster was asking if the lens would work and he is noted as a beginner, I was simply pointing out the lens on a D7000 would not be 90mm.

[ricktas]

Ok, 135mm reach then. Obviously, the lens doesn't change it is still a 90mm lens. As the poster was asking if the lens would work and he is noted as a beginner, I was simply pointing out the lens on a D7000 would not be 90mm.

It doesn't have a 135mm reach. As per my link, what changes is the field of view, nothing else.

[RubyKatz]

Thanks Epoc I like your Avatar, I changed mine so you know I am a she not a he. Not that it makes much difference. I have been on a photography course and heard of this change in distance, but have not really dwelled on it too much. One day I might read about it and understand it a little more, I think in simple terms because my camera is not full framed it doesn't give a true capture as a full framed camera would and then ...... well that is as far as I am understanding all that at present. I am not too worried that I haven't got the all singing all dancing camera just as long as I can occasionally take a good photo, would like to every time but that would be asking too much.

So which is better the Tamron or the Sigma?