Micro (or do you say Macro?) Advice Needed

My wife and I just booked a Benelux trip for early May. Part of the trip will be to knock off one of my bucket list items: Keukenhof tulip gardens. It seems a shame to even consider going somewhere with 7 million tulips and no macro lens, right? At least that is what I'm telling my wife. I know she's on to me but I think will let me get away with a new lens for the trip. Since we always pack light, I most likely won't have a tripod. Which leads me to the audience participation component of this thread: Which lens should I consider?

I've used the Tamron 90mm macro and was impressed. With the glaring exception of the Nikon 24-120, I've never been disappointed with Nikkor glass. Realizing that I might want VR, I keep coming back to the Nikkor 105mm/f2.8 VR. Is that the best choice?

I'd say the Macro 105 f/2.8. It would seem to be the most versatile choice for what you want to do with it. By the way, Macro is Nikon's version of micro. Just to add to this...macro is 1:1, whereas micro is anywhere from 1:1 - 1:4 resolution.

fotojack said:

I'd say the Macro 105 f/2.8. It would seem to be the most versatile choice for what you want to do with it. By the way, Macro is Nikon's version of micro. Just to add to this...macro is 1:1, whereas micro is anywhere from 1:1 - 1:4 resolution.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jack. I'm leaning that way, too.

On another note, does the bottom part of the Kuekenhof image seem overly sharpened to anyone else?

Not really. Looks OK to me on my monitor. Others may vary, of course. Perhaps printed out it would look different, I don't know.

Know you will enjoy your trip. Holland is a very beautiful country, and the folks are pretty nice too.

Mark E said:

Know you will enjoy your trip. Holland is a very beautiful country, and the folks are pretty nice too.

Click to expand...

I love it. This will be my 4th time in 6 years.

I think Tokina makes a pretty highly regarded 100mm macro lens. I'd suggest researching that one as it's bound to be cheaper than the Nikkor.

I've lived in Den Haag and the light in Holland is fantastic. It's almost cheating. So different than the light here at altitude in Mexico City.

Be sure to post your photos when you get back.

I have a 105mm f2.8 macro and love it. It's a fast and very clean lens. And though I'm sure the Tamron is a nice lens, I have a hard time believing it's as sweet at this Nikkor lens.

I would also say the Nikkor lens is your best option since you will be hand held and the VR may be of great help, my 105 Sigma is a tripod only lens. Is there any chance of renting one first and giving it a good test under estimated conditions? Just a thought.

WJYPhoto said:

I would also say the Nikkor lens is your best option since you will be hand held and the VR may be of great help, my 105 Sigma is a tripod only lens. Is there any chance of renting one first and giving it a good test under estimated conditions? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

That is a good idea. My wife has been trying to get me to go to Longwood Gardens. . . hmmm. . .

Alright, let me slide in here with a question of my own since we're talking Micro/Macro...I'm researching some lenses myself and have been looking pretty heavily at the Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G lens. Has anyone used it or have any comparably better lenses for around the same price? The weather here is total shite right now and that's not a good thing for my wallet, I tend to browse...a lot.[h=1][/h]

That shot is a wide angle shot I bet you money...and that is something you need to consider too because the best lens in the world to take a snap of a field of flowers is a wide angle lens...

Eye-level said:

That shot is a wide angle shot I bet you money...and that is something you need to consider too because the best lens in the world to take a snap of a field of flowers is a wide angle lens...

Click to expand...

Great point. I'll have my much loved Sigma 10-20 in my kit.

3Ring said:

I think Tokina makes a pretty highly regarded 100mm macro lens.

Click to expand...

I agree that in the 100mm range macro lens category, Tokina is better than the Nikon and Canon counterpart.

Ranie said:

I agree that in the 100mm range macro lens category, Tokina is better than the Nikon and Canon counterpart.

Click to expand...

In what way?

Hi Eduard, I cant seem to find the link to the website where they did a side by side comparison test on macro lenses. But as soon as I find it, I will post the link here for everybody to read. All I can find right now is Ken Rockwell's review of the Tokina 100mm F2.8 Macro Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro AT-X PRO D AF, which he specifically say that in terms of "Optical Performance", the Tokina is better than Nikon and Canon Macro lenses in the 100mm range.

Ranie said:

...Ken Rockwell's review...

Click to expand...

Now you've done it.

Ranie said:

...Ken Rockwell's review...

Click to expand...

PhotoAV8R said:

Now you've done it.

Click to expand...

I was wondering who was going to be the first to say something. . . this should get interesting! :rainbow:

Uh oh, I'm waiting with baited breath to see what this is all about....I've actually done a fair bit of browsing on Mr. Rockwell's site myself, it's one of the defining factors that led me to purchase my D5100. I'm willing to wager there are those of you on here that strongly disagree with his reviews and practices

I'm using a D90 because of KR's review and learned a lot on his site. However, I believe some here would disagree that he has anything of value to add to the subject of photography.