Nikon MAcro Lens

[dbose]

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

[kiwi]

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.

[TEITZY]

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

[dbose]

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?

[enduro]

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.

[TEITZY]

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

[enduro]

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?

[TEITZY]

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

[campo]

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.

[dbose]

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

[ving]

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

[campo]

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.

[kiwi]

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

[Imaginative]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/44328629@N03/4989958948/