Macro - 40 or 85

Looking around for a macro lens and, given need to build and keep costs low, was intending to get a new Nikkor 40mm Micro (around £185). However, today saw an excellent condition 85mm f3.5 Micro for £299 (around £100 off the cost of a new one).

Welcome Nikonites views on the versatility and quality of each. I shoot a variety of subjects (Landscape, bugs, street, portrait, anything!). Currently use a D3200, and have the 18-55mm, 35mm and 55-300mm.

thanks

I'd suggest reviewing this thread. It might influence your decision.

my sigma 105 os macro arrived today, some sample pics I have posted already on my tokina 100 thread under general lenses. the lens seems to be fantastic build and quality and the image quality is beautiful, the only two issues which I need to observe over the next few days are weight and the loud OS. the 105mm focal length gives me extra reach which will be useful if taking pics of bugs and things. At the moment this lens can be had for just over 400 euros new.

Eduard said:

I'd suggest reviewing this thread. It might influence your decision.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I had read this, but wondered whether, as a full-frame lens, it might not be the best bet for the D3200. Does it matter?

You just need to make sure that whatever lens you buy has an integrated autofocus motor as the D3200 does not have one. Any of the current Nikkor "AF-S" lens will work.

If you shoot bugs then you need a longer focal length to maintain the distance. Normally there is no need for AF in macro shots as you have to fine tune the focus due to extreme short DOF. That means a manual macro lense is all that you will need, unless you want to shoot small insects on the move.

I have the Nikon MF 105F2.8 macro bough from KEH and it is excellent.

have decided to send the sigma 105 which arrived yesterday back. First of all it is quite a heavy lens to lug around on a long walk, but the real showstopper for me is the really loud optical stabilisation system. Sigma will be sent back, will try the Tamron 90 VC instead.

tried the tamron 90, but I had a real problem with over exposure on my D7000, this was also sent back. So what now, tried the sigma 105 and tammy 90, not forking out the money for the nikkor 105 so I thought I would give the nikkor 40mm a go and guess what..... I am thrilled! It is light, easy to handle, feels just right on the d7000, extremely sharp, nice bokeh and at 40mm makes a great walkaround lens on a cop sensor. Here are a first few pics, a little noisy because they were taken indoors at night, but notice the little fatherchristmassy guy in the yukka tree. I think this lens is a keeper. Fits my needs perfectly.

I have the 40mm Macro also and have always loved that lens. It works great as a prime walk around lens also. The only drawback to the lens is bugs. You have to get very close to shoot. Scares the little bugs.

Don Kuykendall said:

I have the 40mm Macro also and have always loved that lens. It works great as a prime walk around lens also. The only drawback to the lens is bugs. You have to get very close to shoot. Scares the little bugs.

Click to expand...

personally im not much of a macro shooter full stop, but my wife loves to photograph flowers and berries and things on our mountain hikes. She is therefore the one gonna get stung not me

I'd aim for longest reach you can get within your budget. Today you may want to shoot this in macro, tomorrow that may be out of reach and there goes your new idea altogether.

Next on my list is definitely the 105 micro or maybe Tokina 90 or something else in that range from what I've been reading.

85mm micro, would be much better than 40mm. Better for portraiture, better for macro - in both situations you don't want your camera to be too close to the subject/object (casting shadows!), and you want as little distortion as possible.