User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Nikon MAcro Lens

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    524
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon MAcro Lens

    Hi Guys

    Thinking of buying a macro lens for my D90. Prices vary around the $500 mark (in places like B&H on line stores) a 60mm F2.8. I was thinking a lower F-Stop would be better like 1.8 or lower but nothing's available with a similar focal length. Most of the ones with a lower F-Stop are 22mm. Is a larger focal length better (but then the F-Stop gets bigger too).

    Any suggestions please...

    Cheers
    DJ

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Youll generally find that you are shooting macros at f/8 or smaller to get a reasonable depth of field, so unless you are also intending to use it for very low light wedding or portraits etc I would not worry about it.
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    27 Nov 2008
    Location
    Wunghnu Victoria
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As Darren said, most macro is done at f8 or smaller apertures. If you are using a macro for portraits as well then you would probably use it at wider apertures (eg. f2.8), though they won't be as sharp at f2.8 as they are f8.

    You really can't go wrong with any macro in the 85-105mm focal range (throw in the Tamron 60 f2 as it has a similar working distance as these lenses). Price wise probably the Tokina 100mm, Sigma 105 and the Tamron 90 are in the US $500 range and all excellent performers. The new Nikon 85VR 3.5 looks good as well, so plenty of choices.

    Cheers
    Leigh
    Nikon D600, 24-70, 300 VR1 2.8, Tamron 60 f2 macro + Kenko tubes. SB800.



    My Nikonians Gallery

  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    18 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    524
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Guys - if I am choosing between the Nikon AF 60mm F2.8D macro lens @ 459 USD vs. Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG macro autofocus @ USD 479 which one would be a better option?

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2007
    Location
    Perth, Straya
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbose View Post
    Thanks Guys - if I am choosing between the Nikon AF 60mm F2.8D macro lens @ 459 USD vs. Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG macro autofocus @ USD 479 which one would be a better option?
    60mm and 105mm are a macro world apart. With the 105 you're going to get 1:1 and the 60mm you are not.

    If they make one for the Nik's the Tamron 90mm is an excellent lens. I have the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and a friend has the Tammy and has results that are really just FANTASTIC. This is assisted by his flash however, which is a hot shoe mounted flash with a very low profile. He picked it up for $120 at a sale somewhere and that near straight on light gives as good a shot as the most expensive ring lights.

    I need to get a new low profile flash myself.
    "Nature photography is about choosing a location, crawling through dirt, being bitten by insects and occasionally taking a great image". - Wayne Eddy.

    Canon 5D MkIII, Canon 7D, 17-40mm f/4L,
    24-105mm f/4L
    + Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS +400mm f/5.6L + Canon 1.4xTC + Canon 100 EF f2.8 USM + 430-EX


  6. #6
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    27 Nov 2008
    Location
    Wunghnu Victoria
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by enduro View Post
    60mm and 105mm are a macro world apart. With the 105 you're going to get 1:1 and the 60mm you are not.
    The 60mm is a 1:1 macro the same as the 105, however the working distance is smaller with the 60mm (71mm vs 121mm) which is why I would recommend the Sigma over the Nikkor 60.

    Cheers
    Leigh

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    19 Jan 2007
    Location
    Perth, Straya
    Posts
    1,232
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TEITZY View Post
    The 60mm is a 1:1 macro the same as the 105, however the working distance is smaller with the 60mm (71mm vs 121mm) which is why I would recommend the Sigma over the Nikkor 60.

    Cheers
    Leigh
    Ahhh ... I wasn't aware of that. I had thought that it wasn't a 1:1 as the subject is never as small in the frame as with the 100's.

    I also understood the 60mm is a good candidate for flowers (20-50mm) and the like, but a less likely candidate for insects (5-20mm range).

    100mm range is a popular lens for macro work.

    Opinions?

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    27 Nov 2008
    Location
    Wunghnu Victoria
    Posts
    1,436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah generally the shorter focal lengths are prefered for flowers or non-living subjects due to their shorter working distance. Personally I think most people overstate the benefits of longer working distances when it comes to insects and in fact it can be a hindrance if you are a full flash shooter.

    Cheers
    Leigh

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i had a sigma 70-200 "macro" and when i got myself a real macro lens (nikkor 105VR) i immediately noticed the difference with how much easier it was to get closer to small things without disturbing them with the 70-200mm...that said, the 105 is an amazing lens and I have no regrets! Maybe one day i may grab the nikkor 180...maybe...

    Anyways, back to your question, considering my experiences in going for 200mm to 105mm, trying to get close to small things with a 60mm macro could be a challenge, a big one...

    i'd recommend going for something in the 90-100ish range...there's also the new 85mm by nikon too.

  10. #10
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    18 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    524
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks a lot guys for the information. It looks like the shorter lenses (like 60mm macro) is good for flowers and longer (like the 105 mm macro) is good for smaller objects. Given that I can not afford 2 lenses now, do you suggest me investing on the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro and with that can I cover flowers as well (given 60mm is more suited for bigger objects)?

    Also on another note, is the 105 mm macro any good for portraits at all over the normal lenses or do I stick to my normal lenses for that?

    Thanks again all of you...

    Cheers
    DJ

  11. #11
    Amor fati!
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    tammys 90 and 60mm macro would be good. the 60 is a f2 which is pretty wide.
    a 50mm f1.8 with an extension tube might work well if you need a f1.8

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    338
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dbose View Post
    Thanks a lot guys for the information. It looks like the shorter lenses (like 60mm macro) is good for flowers and longer (like the 105 mm macro) is good for smaller objects. Given that I can not afford 2 lenses now, do you suggest me investing on the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro and with that can I cover flowers as well (given 60mm is more suited for bigger objects)?

    Also on another note, is the 105 mm macro any good for portraits at all over the normal lenses or do I stick to my normal lenses for that?

    Thanks again all of you...

    Cheers
    DJ
    what sort of flowers are we talking here? giant ones from a jungle in south america?? I think you'll find 105 can do most flowers quite easily, albeit with slightly longer (not huge) working distance then a 60

    I have used my 105VR for portraits but on a cropped sensor it is on the long side if you want to do half to full body shots. I also have the 85F1.4, so i usually mount it for portraits although the 105VR is no slouch.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Nikon's new 85 or 105 VR (or even older 105 AF that I have) would be my choices here

    Stay with Nikon glass, sooner or later youll sell everything else and replace it with Nikon glass, so, you might as well start there

  14. #14
    Member Imaginative's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Jul 2010
    Location
    Browns Plains
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •