Macro for Nikon

[thegrump]

If I went out looking for a Macro for my Nikon D3100. with very little money, what would I be looking for.

[piczzilla]

Most affordable starter-kit
1. Reverse ring
2. Paper plate (for diffusing pop up flash)

[Hawthy]

Most affordable starter-kit
1. Reverse ring
2. Paper plate (for diffusing pop up flash)

Just ordered a $9.99 reverse ring. Already have a paper plate. Will report back in a few weeks. Cheers.

[J.davis]

Set of Auto tubes to start with, and then maybe a Sigma 105?

[ameerat42]

If I went out looking for a Macro for my Nikon D3100. with very little money, what would I be looking for.

TG. I'd be looking to save up a bit for a good macro lens, such as - but not exclusively - the Σ105

[thegrump]

I have a Nikon 18-55, Nikon 55-200 and a Sigma 50-500....also have some screw on macro thingies. but now looking for a proper macro...something like $300 or so. and where to buy it.

[arthurking83]

I doubt you'd get any better than one of the old Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lenses.(secondhand).

I don't know what models are still available new, but there's about 3 models that I can think of.

1. the old screw driven 90mm f/2.8, maybe called the Di model .. with a blue collar or marking around the lens. This is the one you DON'T want to get. Because its screw driven, your D3xxx model can't AF with it.(you'd need a D90-ish type camera to get AF)
This model has a focus collar that pulls back and forth to engage/disengage manual focus mode .. and this blue marking on it to show AF or MF.

2. Tamron updated to the 90mm f/2.8 VC(vibration compensation), and this one is a good one too .. pretty cheap. It has the required USD af motor so that your D3xxx camera can af with it.
The way I remember this model, is that the body is all black

3. Tamron then made a third update model with VC too, you can get away with using a slower shutter speed and still get sharp images. Pretty expensive new .. not sure how much s/h if you can find one.
This model lens is the latest, and is predominantly black, but has a beige coloured ring around the camera mount end of the lens body.

#2 is the one you want to look for. I think you could still probably find one new(as old stock listings) .. they were still a very good lens too.

Sigma's 105 is also a very good lens too.
I think you can also get them very cheap on ebay and such other sites. Just make sure that with any Sigma lens, it's a HSM model (ie. autofocus ability with your camera!!)

[piczzilla]

I thirded Sigma 105mm, but if you need some cheaper alternatives:
1. Extension tubes - no loss in IQ, but loss in light & working distance (lighting's gonna be a little challenging, and some skittish critters might not be too happy)
2. Close up filter - loss in IQ, quite severely too in my experience
3. Reverse ring - best choice imho, no loss in IQ, and working distance is quite good, loss of AF/auto metering/etc, but this is not a real loss in my opinion, as I usually go fully manual anyway (not sure if others have different experience)

Here's a vid to show the approx magnification:

[thegrump]

https://www.teds.com.au/nikon-af-s-40mm-f2-8g-dx-micro


Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens Nikon F Mount on eBay brand new from Sydney $390

[Cage]

https://www.teds.com.au/nikon-af-s-40mm-f2-8g-dx-micro


Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens Nikon F Mount on eBay brand new from Sydney $390

The Nikon AF-S 40mm f2.8G DX Micro is an excellent macro lens giving you 1.0x magnification. However it doesn't have VR (Vibration Reduction) meaning that unless you have very, very steady hands you would have to use it with a tripod and also a remote shutter release to get the best results.

The Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens is not a macro lens.

PS: That's a good price from Ted's and you will get a two year Nikon Australia warranty too.

[thegrump]

Thanks Cage. The Tamron was advertised under a macro list. The Nikon without the VR would limit the use too much, I think. although I do have 3 tripods and a flexitilt.

[fillum]

The Tamron AF 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens is not a macro lens.

I often see these big zooms listed with "macro" capabilities even though they probably reproduce at something like 1:3.5 at best. I don't think there is any standard that defines exactly what a macro lens should deliver so manufacturers are probably within their rights (albeit fairly loosely) claiming this. We typically assume the ratio should be 1:1 for macro, but even (at least some) Zeiss "makro"s are only 1:2

So it pays to be careful and check the specs...

Good luck with the hunt.

[ameerat42]

Optically, the "good thing about" a longer focal length macro, like f=75mm to f=105mm instead of an f=50mm,
is that the the lens does not have to refract the light so strongly. It usually results in a greater subject distance,
and you can use the likes of pop-up flash at a decent angle of illumination. (Of course, if the lens is too long, you'll
get a shadow cast by it)

[arthurking83]

I often see these big zooms listed with "macro" capabilities even though they probably reproduce at something like 1:3.5 at best. I don't think there is any standard that defines exactly what a macro lens should deliver so manufacturers are probably within their rights (albeit fairly loosely) claiming this. We typically assume the ratio should be 1:1 for macro, but even (at least some) Zeiss "makro"s are only 1:2

Good luck with the hunt.

I remember reading about this.

Many years ago, it was decided to agree that anything from 1:3 and higher is regarded as macro.
Strange, but true .. and as a useless bit of information, it had something to do with a standard print size of the time(I think 6x4 .. can't be 100% sure).
But because the 35mm film were regularly printed on 6x4(or whatever was the most common paper), the enlargement factor was taken into account, so that the reproduction ration(or 1:4) at the film plane was then decided on!
It seems strange to decide this issue on the basis of what was the common paper size for prints of that particular era.

The reason it came about was that a rogue lens manufacturer had a lens that was capable of focusing up close(but not 1:1 close), and they used the term macro on the lens, even tho the definition of macro was up to 1:1 at the film plane.
But because of the common use of printing the films onto paper of a particular size, this manufacturer cheated a bit .. using the enlarging factor for the overall image results.

You'd have to say fair enough really, as most images were viewed as printed photographs back then, and not viewed via a loupe on a light table!

Can't remember the name of the lens manufacturer, and it wasnt' one of the well known ones of today.
Maybe Vivitar(memory feels like it's failed today) .. most likely not, and I think it was one of the now non-existant ones .. maybe a European brand no longer with us.