Macro is one of my passions and I would suggest for a APS-C camera that either of the 100mm canons would be the way to go and they will transition well to a FF camera in the future.
The 100mm will give you the equivalent of a 160mm full frame.
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 13
Macro is one of my passions and I would suggest for a APS-C camera that either of the 100mm canons would be the way to go and they will transition well to a FF camera in the future.
The 100mm will give you the equivalent of a 160mm full frame.
Last edited by Roane Photo; 12-06-2017 at 11:15pm.
Is there such a thing as a bad macro lens? I'm really struggling to think of anyone who has ever owned a macro lens that was no good. Plenty of people have regretted buying one that was too long or too short for them - mostly people wish that they had gone longer - but that's a different issue. When I bought my first macro lens I was talked into getting a 60 rather than a 90/100/105. I always found the 60 a bit difficult for close-up work, and eventually bought a 100L, which suits me better. Just the same, the 60 was a sweet lens, useful for much, much more than macro, and I still have it. I also bought a 35mm macro. Can't remember why, there must have been some reason at the time. Doubt that I ever did much macro work with it, but it too was a sweet little lens.
Long and the short of it: pick your length range (if in doubt, start with 100ish) and buy any of the usual suspects with confidence.
Lots of great advice on this thread, and I'd like to reiterate the helpfulness of going long (150-200 if possible) when photographing insects.
Anyway hopefully the OP bought a good one and is satisfied with it. We may never know since their last post was in May last year.
^ That would be because he got such excellent advice here that there has been no need for any follow-up questions, of course.
I think that one (big) trap for young players is the Lens which labelled "Macro" or similar, usually as a suffix to a Zoom Lens's nomenclature.Originally Posted by Tannin
These can sometimes be a "bad lens".
But yes I agree - in so far as 'proper' Macro Lenses go - there aren't any bad ones that can think of: I think that's because of the necessary optical excellence to make them a 'proper' Macro lens in the first instance.
I also agree - (albeit that I suggested the OP look at the Canon 50mm, as an option) - if in doubt about the choice of Focal Length then going a bit longer is safer than going a bit shorter.
I think that the 60mm Macro you have is probably a very good partner for the 100mm - its probable that sometimes you are used to the extra Working Distance of the 100mm, rather than actually needing it . I know that my 50mm macro doesn't get all that much use because I simply default to the 100mm when using either format.
I think that the Tripod Ring Mount for the 100 (and the 180) is very useful, that's an advantage of the 100 (and 180) have over the 50 and the 60. I don't think that the potential usefulness of the Tripod Ring Mount was mentioned previously in this conversation. (Referring to Canon's range of Macro lenses).
WW
Yep!
Me!!!
Nikon 105VR. Technically it's not a bad lens .. just not a good lens either. it's a neither here nor there kind of lens .. average, ho-hum, the kind of lens I suggest to ignore.
Note tho that this is only in terms of it's use as a macro lens.
As a portrait lens, it's fantastic. Bokeh is about as good as any other lens out there(given it's physical properties).
VR works quite well, and in normal useage, focusing is quick(if sometimes a little indecisive or whether to actually do it or not).
But you don't by a 105mm f/2.8 lens to do portraits, or general imaging, or for it's optical stabilisation .. you'd buy one for the ability to take high quality closeups or true 1:1 macro images.
Both Sigma's that I've tried are better(at image rendering), and even Tamron's older screw driven 90/2.8 is about the same IQ, with less aberrations to worry about.
So for the premium that Nikon charges for the 105VR Micro(which = macro in Nikon world!!) .. I suggest save your $s and go for a Sigma, or Tamron.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
Well, I did. But I suppose when you say "you" you really only mean normal people.
Not too sure whether the above is simply banter or serious comment, but, I did indeed buy the EF 100/2.8 Macro in addition for its Macro capacity, for use as normal function Prime Lens to sit between my 85 and my 135, INSTEAD of buying the EF 100/2.
It occured to me to be both redundant and extravagant to buy BOTH the 100/2 and the 100/2.8 Macro so I opted to buy only one and the one I choose was the one with Macro capacity at the expense of the one stop of Aperture Speed.
Had I be buying later, I would have purchased the IS version of the 100mm Macro and the fact of it having IS would have made the purchasing choice even more easy for me.
The EF 100/2.8 makes for an excellent Prime Lens and it can be readily used for Portraiture, even in low light shooting.
I see no reason why others wouldn't (and shouldn't) consider using "macro" lenses as an addition to their cache of Prime Lenses and for those (macro) lenses to be used for general photographic use - for Portraiture and many other uses, too.
“Young Athlete”, Sydney, SOP (circa 2006)
EOS 5D; EF100F/2.8Macro
F/2.8 @ 1/8s @ ISO1600
HH, Spot Meter, Manual Exposure, Available (room) Light, AWB; JPEG file.
WW
Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2017 WMW 1965~1996
I think you've misunderstood W.
I didn't(and wouldn't) buy a macro lens just for portrait and or general imaging work .. that it can do such things well is simply a bonus.
The 105VR lens is just not the ideal lens to be using for macro work .. which is primary reason I got it.
My point was to anyone looking for a macro lens for their Nikon camera is to save their money and get any other macro lens other than the 105VR.
And there are better(specced) lenses that can do general photography duties as well or better too.
That wouldn't surprise me as the Nikon doesn't rate that highly on sharpness. DXOMARK says the lens rates best at f2.8. That makes absolutely no sense for a macro lens. Lensscore gives the Nikon almost the same overall score as the Sony, yet it terms of resolution the Nikon gets 1001 and the Sony 1150. I think the Nikon must do better as a portrait lens, but who in their right mind buys a macro lens primarily as a portrait lens?
I did say "it's not a bad lens .. it's just not a good lens"
So I don't hate it .. just don't like it, or rate it highly.
It was in fact this lens that's put me off Nikon lenses, in a value for money sense.
DxO's rating makes sense, in that it works best at f/2.8, it's biggest issue is that it produces a lot of chromatic aberrations, and strangely the more you stop it down, the more it produces(usually it works the other way around for most lenses).
If you compare the 105VR against either of the Sigma macros on The Digital Picture, the 105VR looks OK, but slightly magenta/green rendering for black lines on white background, whereas the Sigma's both produce crystal clear black on white rendering.
In many instances the Ca isn't a problem(eg. highly colourful details, that can mask the colour issue) but when you do happen to capture a scene where Ca is produced, it's usually significant.
they used to make some of the best macro/micro lenses.
(apparently) the 105/2.8 before the VR and the 105/4 before it, as well as the 200/4 and the 60/2.8's and 50/3.5's and 50/2.8's all work particularly well as macro lenses.
It's just that the 105VR isn't their best effort, and they have the historical knowhow to do better.
Note too tho that there are many happy customers out there too.
Maybe those owners just got one of the better samples of this lens, or maybe they just shoot specific types of macro/closeups scenes and they don't see the same results when they surface.
This is a lens type that Nikon seem to have completely ignored for a while now.
For the past few years, they have been on the road to modernises all of their old lenses that used the screw type focus system(AF/AF-D type lenses) .. to the more modern AFS type lenses.
The old 200/4 is an AF-D type lens, that has yet to be updated in any way to the more modern AF system.
But instead, they create a 8-15mm fisheye zoom that in all likelyhood not many folks are really interested in.
Back in the day, Nikon also had what was once regarded as one of the best micro(oops! ... I meant macro ... for non Nikon folks to comprehend!!) lenses. While it didn't do 1:1, it did do 1:2 which is(I think) the only zoom lens to do greater than 1:3 or so repro).
That's true Arthur. My 105 f2.8 AF (not D), unfortunately no longer working, was stunningly good as a macro lens (and perfectly ok for portraits too). My current 200 f4 is even better. Really surprising if they've dropped the ball with the current version.
I seem to remember when I started macro photography that most of the experts used Nikon gear, but that was 10-15 years ago.
I've bought three macro lenses over the years:
- 1: Canon EF-S 60mm. I bought this for doing macro work. (Actually, my girlfriend gave it to me as a present, which was nice of her.) In practice, I tinkered a bit with macro subjects, but mostly used it as a long normal / mild telephoto prime. (On APS-C, 60mm is equivalent to 96mm on full frame.) In that role, I used it a lot and became very fond of it. The only thing I really missed was IS. As I gradually switched (mostly) over to APS-H and full frame bodies (which you can't use EF-S lenses on) it became a bit neglected. My girlfriend now has it on semi-permanent loan. She uses it quite a bit. Lovely little lens.
- 2: Tokina 35mm. I honestly can't remember what I bought this for, though it was probably Arthur's fault. It was always too short to be much use for macro work, but I loved using it as a general-purpose prime. (Wide on full frame; normal on APS-C.) Now that I think of it, I seem to remember wanting it so as to have a macro lens to use when my girlfriend was hogging the 60. Eventually I replaced it with a 35mm f/1.4L Canon (non-macro) prime: three times the cost and three times the weight. I'm not entirely convinced that the swap was a good idea.
- 3: Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS. Once again, I mostly bought it for macro work. Once again, I mostly use it as a general-purpose prime - though even on full frame it's a bit long to be really useful in that role.
So there we have three macro lenses, all bought to do macro work, and all used (mostly) as ordinary prime lenses. Possibly this says more about me and my habits than it does about the use of macro lenses. But perhaps it reminds us that macro lenses aren't only good for macro subjects.
I have no less than 5 macros.
- Sigma 180mm macro. This is the second lens I ever bought in about 2003. I used it initially for both telephoto and for macro. It is a great lens and I would still be using it if the aperture didn't jam sometimes and Kennedy's tell me it is too old to get parts for.
- Canon MP-E 65mm, bought in 2006. A remarkable lens and still the only one that can take up to 5:1 macros. Takes beautiful pictures! But, it only focuses very close and it has no focus ring, only a magnification ring, so it is very hard to use. In spite of that it still gets some use when I want to photograph something very small. I now use it with a metabones adaptor on a Sony A7R2.
- Canon 100mm macro IS, bought in 2012. A good lens, but no better than the Sigma. Gets a lot of use mainly because the sigma is now dodgy.
- Canon 60mm EF-S macro. Ok lens, bought for me with the Canon 7DII and other equipment by the BBC.
- Sony 90mm G OSS lens. Currently my best macro lens which I use with the Sony A7R2. It is significantly sharper than my other macro lenses.
I use all of these lenses currently, but the Sigma only rarely, as it makes funny noises now. The Canon lenses, I use with 3 Canon cameras exclusively for time lapse. Sometimes all 3 are being used at the same time. The Sony is used with a Sony camera for stills and some time lapse.
Unlike Tanin, all of my macro lenses are used as macro lenses. I did once use the Sigma 180mm as a telephoto and I do sometimes use the Sony 90mm as a 90mm, but I am mainly a macro photographer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
