Advice on Macro Lens for my D7000

texaslimo

Senior Member
Hello all,

I know it has been a while, but i am finally getting back around to my photography itch. Spring and summer are super busy in my industry and other projects have eaten up the dollars that i wanted to spend on lenses earlier. Time and money have not been on my side.

First, thank you for the aid in selecting my second DSLR. I love the D7000. Your advice there was right on target.

Regarding lenses, I am seeking advice on what would make the best macro lens. I remember that i did ask a similar if not exactly the same question in a post once before, but for the life of me i cannot find that post or the associated replies. There was a discussion about best lenses to have, which i was involved in, where I remember that one of the two lenses discussed was a 50mm 1.4 for normal usage. To the best of my recollection the macro that was suggested was a 200mm 1.4 or 1.8??? It could have also been the 105mm? Please refresh my aging memory and provide some discussion on this.

Thanks ahead of time,

Texaslimo
 

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
I'd recommend the 105mm. I also had the 40mm macro. Both are good lenses, but the 105mm is a fun lens and you don't have to be as close to your subject, as compared to the 40mm. This is good for shooting live critters that flee. Congrats on the D7000.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
There's no such thing as a 200 1.4 or 1.8 in macro or otherwise. Nikon does make a 200 f/2 but it isn't a macro and costs about as much as a nice used car. They do make a 200 f/4 macro that's supposed to be excellent. We really need to know your budget and preferred subjects as the recommendations depend on it. Nikon's 105 is an excellent all-around macro but you might want something a bit longer for the little critters. Sigma's 150 macro is outstanding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

oldsalt

Senior Member
I have a Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO EX DG OS Macro HSM (yeah a real mouthful) and it's a great lens - lets you get a bit further away from little critters that you would otherwise disturb with a "shorter" lens. Good luck with your macro photography....
cheers
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
If you don't have $900+ to spend on the Nikon micro, you might consider the Tokina 100 2.8 macro. Built like a tank, great optics and priced under $500. No VR, but for most macro stuff, you'll be using a tripod. I've even managed some decent hand-held shots with it at 1/60 sec. Macro shooting takes some practice, regardless of the lens or added feature such as vibration reduction. Depth of field is paper thin and setting up in the same plane as the subject is critical. But when you grab a good shot, it can be awesome! Good luck.
 

Kodiak

Senior Member
Hey Texaslimo,

The best macro lens, if I don't know your budget, is gonna be…

A better practice and strategy is to go for longer lenses, 85 to 105mm and more.
For the simple reason that, for a given frame, you will keep the subject at a longer
distance from the lens than say 55 to 60 mm macro lens will.

In certain situation, in the open, this distance will help you compose better frames
where you will not throw your own shadow in the picture. In studio, it will allow
more room for light sources, reflectors, and what not.

For you, planning to work on a DX format (16MP) the 105mm lens will offer even
more benefits in these directions,

Have a good day…
 

texaslimo

Senior Member
I like shooting macro shots of plants and insects when i can get close enough. I enjoy the different perspective that you can get from being so focused on a single object. I would like to stay away from DX lenses if possible as my long term fantasy is to have a full frame camera. I am most concerned with acquiring the right tools. If the right one is more expensive, then i will have to save a bit longer. I am not a snob, i just want it to work the way it is supposed to when i need it to. A Cadillac is nice to have but a Dodge works just as well. I have heard some good things about Sigma and Tamron. How do they compare to Nikon lenses? Old Salt, what does that mouthful of alphabet soup translate into?

Wow! almost everyone says that the 105 is a good way to go. That may well end up being my final choice, but i would like to hear what yall think of the one that Oldsalt reccommended (Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO EX DG OS Macro HSM) and also of this honking cylinder of glass that i pulled off of the Nikon website:
1989_AF-Micro-NIKKOR-200mm-f-4D-IF-ED_front.png

[h=5]AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED[/h]
Jwstl, I believe this is the one you were talking about? It costs not quite twice what the 105 does, but it does give me twice the available distance from target if i am reading it right? Is there enough difference in the lenses to make it worth the cost? I do like the idea of not having to get so close to the object as i have frequently scared off my intended subject.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
TAMRON SP AF 90MM F/2.8 DI MACRO 1:1 LENS. Best bang for your buck macro lens around. Cadillac at a Dodge price ;)
 

jwstl

Senior Member
[h=5]AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED[/h]
Jwstl, I believe this is the one you were talking about? It costs not quite twice what the 105 does, but it does give me twice the available distance from target if i am reading it right? Is there enough difference in the lenses to make it worth the cost? I do like the idea of not having to get so close to the object as i have frequently scared off my intended subject.

That's the one. I considered it but I went with the Sigma 150 because I'd heard great things and it offered more versatility with it's 2.8 aperture and OS. And everything I'd heard is true; it's a wonderful lens...it's one of my favorite lenses and I've acquired quite a few over the years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Kodiak

Senior Member
but it does give me twice the available distance from target if i am reading it right?

Indeed, this "back up distance" to the subject is the main argument. One may throw
in the same bag the extra features of compression and perspective.

I remember a motorcycle journey through north America… In the south-west desert,
I shot my most beautiful and dramatic photos of rattle snakes, at dawn, by the side of
the road. There was a crowd, I stopped, looked and saw that people wanted to take
picture of the snakes enjoying the rest heat from the tarmac… No one dared to come
too close but all wanted to have pictures. I counted at least 15 mature specimens and
the rattling was loud. Since everybody was standing back, I had enough room to sneak
in and, with my 200mm macro, took some very cool slides of the scary things at a
"safe" distance.

And other advantage of the longer lens and the extended distance to the subject, is that
it gives a better chance at composing your shot, as the distance will keep your very own
shadow off the target!

Think of the way you work, what tool you need… in one word: do your homework!

My only strategy, when it comes to buying gear: NO LIMIT!
Of course, price tags do the same!
 
Last edited:
Top