Macro lens for a beginner on a budget...

Any recommendations? I use a Nikon D3100 and I love photographing bugs, plants, and rocks up close.

hehehe...."photography" and "budget" don't necessarily go in the same sentence when it comes to photography equipment. However, good deals can be had on EBay or Craigslist.....even in the used section of your favourite camera shop.
For a really good macro lens for starting out, you might like to try the Nikon 85mm Micro lens. Another good lens to consider is the 105 macro lens. Others here will most likely chime in with their favourite macro lens suggestions.

Here's a tip: anything that lives or is likely to move, you'd want a longer lens to stay farther away from the subject (bug, ant, butterfly, etc) Anything that is static/stationary, you can get away with a closer lens, such as the 85 macro lens. Just something to think about.

By the way......everyone's idea of a budget is vastly different. For example, take mine for instance.......it's $0.00 LOL

The 40mm micro is great and only about $279.00. As Jack said, if you want to shoot bugs, you'll want a longer lens. The 40mm is great for flowers and rocks.

Liz S. said:

Any recommendations? I use a Nikon D3100 and I love photographing bugs, plants, and rocks up close.

Click to expand...

Just get a Raynox close up lens. It should cost not more than USD100 or cheaper pre-owned. This is what you can achieved.

the recommendation above is like a magnafier,, you can also buy screw on filters doing the same. they do work, but create very narrow depth of field, but quick way of getting closeups..

Also,, not sure if your camera even in manual mode can use an old manual lens. yes, I know the light meter won't work, but I wonder if the camera will snap,, when set to manual mode. one can always take a few test shots, dialing in the exposure,, (looking at the historygram), and then shoot.

reason.. the old 55 macro lens are gems and can be purchased for less than 100 dollars.

but again,, I do not know for certain if your 3100 will not lock up with that lens on.

I am using the Raynox on the AFD 50mm F1.8 lens. This combination cost less than USD200 pre-owned. The 50 mm was also a great prime lens. However, I am not sure it will AF on you D3100.

If you are amenable to using a manual focus lens, and honestly I do not recommend using autofocus for macro work for a number of reasons, you would do well to look at either the superb 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor or it's less expensive sibling, the 55mm f/3.5 AI Nikkor. Both will get you down to 1:2 with the lens alone and 1:1 with the PK-13 extension tube. Some great deals can be had on Fleabay. The 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is probably the sharpest "normal range" lens Nikon has ever made.

Also, if you are bored, you can always read a how-to article I wrote and published on my website with a fairly in depth discussion of macro equipment, lighting, calculations, etc. The URL is Venturing Into the Exciting World of Macrophotography . Hopefully you will find something useful you can take away from it!

Look for a Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 with Macro. This is an incredible lens that you can find on Craigslist or Ebay for around $200.00. Here is a sample of what it can do. D7000 & 28-105 @ 105mm

I'll second the 40mm 2.8G option. That's going to be the cheapest and best lens for doing macro. Though, you do need to be very close to your subject. If you need distance Id recommend saving for a 105.

I shoot with the 40mm 2.8G Macro and it is my favorite lens. Sharp for shooting regular distances and not just the macro. You do need to get very close to things and at some point I will probably add a zoom with macro.

I picked up a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro in perfect nick for $250. This is a cracker of a macro lens and on a crop body like your D3100 will autofocus and is a great focal length. It is tack sharp and very easy to manual focus as well. Also its FX compatible if you ever head down that road.

I have been doing mainly macro for the past 2 years. I have tried manual lens, extension tubes, add on filters and macro lens. They all works, only how much magnifying you want.

In my opinion, macro is not about magnifying the subject but the composition and contrast and etc. To be an art and see the details of what you would not have normally see them with naked eyes. As an old man, manual lens is a challenge when the subject is small. The longer I focus, the more difficult especially is subject moves and try to hide. So, for me auto focus is important and of course, flash. The control of lights is very important.

as far as i remember the raynox will only focus at a fixed distance. some users set their lens to infinity and move the camera to focus. hardly ideal.
i have 3 macro lenses at the moment. the micro-nikkor 60mm and 105mm af-d, plus the sigma 150mm plus sigma 1.4 tc. the latter being my fave for bugs with or without the tc.
the af-d micro-nikkors can be found used for a reasonable price as can the tamron 90mm. (a lens i have previously owned). these are with the nikon 105 af-d. using manual focus, (rock and lock), auto iso with the d7000.
i have heard good reports about the nikon dx 85mm macro.

fotojack said:

Here's a tip: anything that lives or is likely to move, you'd want a longer lens to stay farther away from the subject (bug, ant, butterfly, etc) Anything that is static/stationary, you can get away with a closer lens, such as the 85 macro lens. Just something to think about.

Click to expand...

Just a thought about getting close. Contrary to popular belief, I was reading that when photographing bugs up close. (Flies, Bees etc.) If you can catch them in a jar, put them in the refrigerator overnight. The next day, you can pose them any way you want until they warm up again (about 10-15 minutes). The thought made me wonder... What would the Freezer do? I'm going to try that this summer.

I would not suggest freezing the insect. Most times, you can get close enough if you are patience enough. Shooting from a distance and being close is quite different for macro. At least this is how I feel after 2 years doing it.

So I have the same side-debate: invest in an older/full manual macro lens, Raynox 150 or 250 to use on my 50mm f/2, or struggle getting physically close with an extension tube. Ideally I want to do insects, so I take it at least 105mm is something to look for. My other need is a long reach kinda lens, something 300ish, and while ones like Sigma 70-300 offer that "macro" mode, I know its skiddish at best. What about combination of say that Sigma and a Raynox?

the pics shown with my earlier post were taken with the micro-nikkor 105mm af-d, with a d7000. no flash, i prefer auto iso. normally i use the sigma 150mm. if i need a longer working distance i sometimes use it with the sigma 1.4 tc. this increases image size from 1;1 to 1.4;1. (and gives 210mm focal length).
beware of zooms with a "macro" function. they never give true 1;1 images, not even close!
also, a true macro lens with a raynox filter added will have an almost unuseably shallow depth of field, unless you are prepared to focus stack.

Nothing like trying it out yourself. In my opinion, you need to get close to the insect to get that shot. Lighting is very, very important and how you defuse it.

​It is very similar to you taking a portrait in a studio. Do you use a tele lens, big f stop and high ISO?

STM said:

Venturing Into the Exciting World of Macrophotography

Click to expand...

Great article STM. I've read many published works that aren't that good. In fact, I don't know that I've seen one of that length that's any better!

Thanks!

WM

I got a second hand 60mm af-d 2.8 and LOVE it. It was $280 in Australia, so I'd imagine it'd be $15 in the US.