Thinking about buying a macro lens...

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I've never been someone who considered Macro photography as something I really wanted to get into - and I probably still don't. That said, this month's flower assignment has me assessing some of the shortcomings of my prime lenses and I'm wondering whether I'd be better off having something in the bag? My thing is, I could easily look at the 105mm f2.8 and say that it's likely the best lens, and the best fit given that my current lenses have a gap between 85mm and 150mm. But I figure at some point a 70-200mm will fill that nicely, and I'm not in a position to just drop a grand on a lens I might not use much. So, I'm looking at the 60mm and wondering if I'd be better off with that? I could sell my 50mm 1.8 to cover some of the cost, but given it's barely over $200 new I may just be better off holding onto it. I've considered trying the extension tube route, but most of what I've read points to AF and/or metering issues, and at worst broken lenses.

Anyway, I've done a fair amount of reading and I'm pretty settled on the 60mm f2.8 with the idea that if I ever want to go better than 1:1 a 60mm extension tube will be cheaper than a 105mm. It's not something I think I'll do a lot, but I've found myself enjoying some of the flower stuff and would like something in the bag that lets me get closer. Looking into the eyes of a bug doesn't necessarily interest me, but that doesn't mean I don't want to do it at some point. The 60 will only cost me 1/2 of what the 105mm will run me, and that's a good thing.

So, what I'd like to know from you all is if I'm overlooking something? Is there another lens I should consider? Will the lack of VR on the 60mm bother me (with the D600 I can go pretty high on the ISO with minimal noise, so I should be able to keep the shutter speed above 1/60sec)? You have 24 hours to twist my arm. LOL
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
Have you considered the Tamron 90mm DX. You'll still get a 16mp image on your D800 in DX mode and it's as sharp if not sharper than the Nikon. My wife has the Tamron and we have used the Nikon 105vr. We actually preferred the Tamron. If you take this route it's a cost effective solution that will produce great images.
 

WhiteLight

Senior Member
I would still say the quality of the 105 is well worth the price.
Not just for macros, but portraits and general photography as well..
If not, like Geoff said said the Tamron 90 is pretty good if you want a compromise...
There's the 85mm Nikon micro as well which is decent by itself
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
I've never been someone who considered Macro photography as something I really wanted to get into - and I probably still don't. That said, this month's flower assignment has me assessing some of the shortcomings of my prime lenses and I'm wondering whether I'd be better off having something in the bag? My thing is, I could easily look at the 105mm f2.8 and say that it's likely the best lens, and the best fit given that my current lenses have a gap between 85mm and 150mm. But I figure at some point a 70-200mm will fill that nicely, and I'm not in a position to just drop a grand on a lens I might not use much. So, I'm looking at the 60mm and wondering if I'd be better off with that? I could sell my 50mm 1.8 to cover some of the cost, but given it's barely over $200 new I may just be better off holding onto it. I've considered trying the extension tube route, but most of what I've read points to AF and/or metering issues, and at worst broken lenses.

Anyway, I've done a fair amount of reading and I'm pretty settled on the 60mm f2.8 with the idea that if I ever want to go better than 1:1 a 60mm extension tube will be cheaper than a 105mm. It's not something I think I'll do a lot, but I've found myself enjoying some of the flower stuff and would like something in the bag that lets me get closer. Looking into the eyes of a bug doesn't necessarily interest me, but that doesn't mean I don't want to do it at some point. The 60 will only cost me 1/2 of what the 105mm will run me, and that's a good thing.

So, what I'd like to know from you all is if I'm overlooking something? Is there another lens I should consider? Will the lack of VR on the 60mm bother me (with the D600 I can go pretty high on the ISO with minimal noise, so I should be able to keep the shutter speed above 1/60sec)? You have 24 hours to twist my arm. LOL

Good Topic Jake... I will be reading with interest as a lens of this type is on my Futures list.. after an Ultra wide..

Pat in NH
 

nikonpup

Senior Member
if you just want something in you bag, try a closeup filter set. 72mm with stepup rings. Would fit on most of your lens and not limit file size on 800 and 600
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
Soon after buying my D300 I went to a Tamron sponsored macro workshop. I used the Tamron SP AF DI 90mm f/2.8 Macro. It is a great lens. One of my favorites from that event is below (gallery).

large.jpg


Last spring we had the opportunity to visit the famous Keukenhof Gardens. I wanted a macro lens for the visit and nearly purchased the Tamron. I was fortunate and found a Nikonian selling his lightly used Nikkor 105 VR at a great price otherwise I'm sure I would have purchased the Tamron.

I was traveling light and did not have a tripod with me. I believe that the VR came in handy in that situation - the latest version of the Tamron has added VC (Tamron's version of VR). Honestly, I think I would have been fine with either the Tamron or Nikkor. Optically both are incredible. I think you would be well served with either. Lens speed isn't such a big issue as you'll most likely be stopping down to increase DOF.

One of my favorites from Keukenhof is below (gallery).

large.jpg


Hope this helps!!
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I really don't want a DX lens. Makes zero sense to me, particularly since I'm using my D600 more than the D800 for these types of shots and that would bring me down to 10MP's. I'm happy to take advantage of cropped lenses I collected with my D7000, but I'm not investing in more.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I vote you pick up the 105mm now instead of something else and then ponder for months whether or not you should have picked up the 105mm to the point that you go ahead and buy it and then have to do something with the lens that you bought instead of just buying the 105mm ;)

But seriously, it really is that awesome of a lens. I bit bulky, I'll give you that, but once you start going thru the photos it takes you'll be amazed at the quality of the images. And the VR is exceptionally handy.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
Totally agree with not getting the DX lens based on your bodies. I was just sharing my first hand experience with macro lens.
 

STM

Senior Member
If you have a D800 it makes no sense whatsoever to get a DX macro lens. That is like buying a Cadillac and replacing the 8 cylinder engine with 4 banger.

An alternative no one has brought up is getting an AIS Nikkor. It is not a good idea to use autofocus with macro anyway as deph of field is often measured in millimeters and the camera will not necessarily focus on what you want it to. Manual focusing is always the best bet when doing macro. A 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is a superb lens from the word go. Get the PN-11 and you get 1:1.

I have used a 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor with the PK-13 for over 25 years and it has produces some outstanding images for me. It also makes for a perfect "normal" lens if maximum aperture is not an issue. It is probably the sharpest "normal" range lens Nikon ever made.
 
Last edited:

Geoffc

Senior Member
The reason I suggested a DX lens is because I doubt you will fill a full frame when shooting small stuff. Therefore you pay for coverage you don't need. If you're shooting big stuff then an FX lens obviously makes more sense. The suggestion was based on the overall requirement including low use therefore no big investment. The suggested lens is often used in book example photos so it must do a good job.

Personally I'm going to get the 105vr at some point, however I won't only get it for macro and I already have access to the Tamron.
 

PapaST

Senior Member
What kind of macro work do you see yourself trying? If it's insects and critters then the 105 will give you decent working distance and "quick results". I've messed around with a 40mm macro and didn't like the working distance. I've tried tubes and reverse lens and a combination of the two. I think for some photographers it's worth keeping a reverse adapter in a bag and mating it with a 24mm to do some extreme closeups but I particularly do not get "quick results" with that setup. My 105mm 2.8 I just pop on and start shooting and I get good sharp results without focus rails or fiddling around with adapters or manually focusing.

That being said my vote goes to the 105 with a nod to a reverse adapter and maybe one extension tube. I think they are worth the money to keep around in case you want extreme closeups and you have time for setup.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Again, macro hasn't been something that appeals to me, so whatever I invest in the plan would be to use it in other ways as well, which is why I wrote the AIS lens off early on. If I go with the 105mm its use as a portrait lens would be the tipping point, though I haven't found myself doing much of that either, but at least it's not a one-trick pony for me. I've got a marginal floater problem in my right eye that's just annoying enough to make manual focusing a challenge and with no decent focus screens available yet for the D600 or D800 I'm avoiding that solution.
 

Ironwood

Senior Member
Another lens to consider is the Sigma 105 f2.8 , it has OS, and is cheaper than the Nikkor. It is getting very good reviews, with some saying its better than the Nikkor.
 
Top