Best macro lens

Moab Man

Senior Member
Agreed, I love the Tamron. Can't speak to the Sigma. My favorite two qualities are the glass and the Tamron stabilization is second to none.
 

J-see

Senior Member
I had the Nikon 200mm/f4. When you're shooting bugs, the distance from the subject the 200mm provides compared to a 105mm is a bonus. But the lens was not good for anything but macro. A costly lens however.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
This really depends on what sort of macro you are doing and what your subjects are.
Are you doing handheld live bugs, dead bugs using a tripod and controlled lighting indoors, close ups of flowers or dragonflies etc ?
Different lenses will be suited different subjects. Nearly all current and a lot of older macro lenses are excellent lenses, very sharp etc. my favourite macro lens for handheld bugs and spiders is my Nikon AF55mm f2.8 D. It suits my style, or maybe I have adapted my style to suit this lens, regardless, it's excellent for what I do. It beats my Nikon 105 f2.8 VR which costs about 6 times as much.
To give you a proper answer, you need to give us some more information about what you are hoping to achieve with it, and how much you want to spend.
 

nickt

Senior Member
I've had the Tamron 60 for a long time. Great lens. Got it on a good rebate. Two years ago, I picked up the Sigma 105, also a great lens. I like the extra reach of the 105, but I could not bring myself to sell the 60. I think at times I do better handheld bug shots with the 60. I'm not sure why, I have compared side by side with tripod shots and all is good. Maybe like Brad, the 60 suits my style or I have adapted to the lens.
Sometimes the extra reach of the 105 is a disadvantage. For sure, I grab the 60 if shooting items on a tabletop. I'd need a stool with the 105.
 

Karn

Senior Member
As far as cost, I'm willing to pay whatever the lens is worth to me, also, I may be better off buying a couple different lenses, I would like a lens to get something like an insect in good enough definition to probably blow up to poster size image, Im aware im somewhat limited on size with 1080p, but just to show detail on something somewhat microscopic for lack of a better word, I also want something for up close hi def portrait pics, that's probably where a second lens would come in as I doubt I could find both qualities in one lens, also I noticed some Nikon lenses had limited compatibilities with the 7200, whatever that's all about and why I don't know, as i seen noted in their macro/landscape kit lens
 

Texas

Senior Member
I've had both the Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 and liked the Sigma better as to handling and build quality, pictures were too close to tell the difference.

Sold them both because I don't like bugs and all the good bug pictures have been done already (not by me obviously).

One of the best things for bugs is Spectracide.

As to flowers, many good options short of a dedicated macro lens will do the job.
 

nzswift

Senior Member
Totally disagree on the Nikon Micro 200mm f4.
Great macro lens with massive working distance. Can be used just like the non macro Nikon 200 f4 though. Zoom with your feet :)
 

Karn

Senior Member
When I originally posted I was planning to buy the Nikon Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro, hoping someone would mention that lens for reassurance, now I'm starting to reconsider, also as I'm new I was a little skeptical about other name brand lenses, but from I hear Sigma and Tamron seem to be good quality, what are the low quality lens brands I should stay away from?
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I would say most of the later lenses by the three major brands of 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina) are great lenses. The biggest issue with these lenses is that Nikon appears determined with their new cameras to make life a difficult as possible for all of the 3rd party suppliers of lenses, flashes, grips, batteries, etc.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
When I originally posted I was planning to buy the Nikon Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro, hoping someone would mention that lens for reassurance, now I'm starting to reconsider, also as I'm new I was a little skeptical about other name brand lenses, but from I hear Sigma and Tamron seem to be good quality, what are the low quality lens brands I should stay away from?

Theres certainly nothing wrong with the Nikon 105 VR, its a fantastic lens for macro as well as portraits.
I dont use mine all that much, as I generally prefer to use my older Nikon AF55 D f2.8.
Click on this old thread I did when I was experimenting with the 105 and a CPL filter
https://nikonites.com/macro/31779-macro-using-cpl-filter.html?highlight=ironwoods#axzz54E432UU5

Here is a couple using the old $100 (off ebay) AF55, proves you dont need to spend big money to get a useable lens.

DSC_8117.jpg


DSC_4071.jpg


If the Nikon 105 VR was in your budget, I think you could consider it, or the Sigma 105 and the 150 (both of which get rave reviews), the Tamron 90, or the Tokina 100, all would serve you very well. I know I would be happy with any one of those lenses, but if I didnt have my Nikon 105 already, and I was going to buy again, I think I would probably opt for the Sigma 105 ( if I could get a good deal on the day, otherwise it might be one of the others )
 

J-see

Senior Member
Totally disagree on the Nikon Micro 200mm f4.
Great macro lens with massive working distance. Can be used just like the non macro Nikon 200 f4 though. Zoom with your feet :)

I said the lens was useless for anything BUT macro. Too slow focus motor, noisy, and in being an f4 not very useful for portraits. For macro, manually focussed, great but for all else; outdated and insufficient tech.
 
Top