Old44

Had a stroke in May and limited ability to travel and thought I'd get into micro (macro) photography. What lens - Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, etc - do you all recommend for my D 610? Budget under $1000. Thanks.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Nikon 105mm 2.8.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

Check out http://www.tinylandscapes.com . Met Mike a few years back at a club meeting. Great guy! He had a lot of information. Now days I think he nainly does trips and lessons

Basically you'll want something to cover the 90 to 105 region with macro abilities although Mike is championed by Tamron lenses.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMO, there is not $.10 difference between brands. There is considerable difference between focal lengths however.

hpcon Loc: Riverside, Ca

I second the lens... I have the 105 2.8 and It really is a jewel of a lens.
In addition to the lens, I recommend you get a strong, steady tripod.
I have a $60 tripod from Costco and $245 tripod from the Sammys Camera. The difference in sharpness is very very obvious. The bigger tripod its a must for micro photography.... so happy shopping and get well soon.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I use the Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G Micro lens that goes for around $1000.
There are also Nikon AF-S 60mm, 85mm and 200mm Micro lenses, but I don't know the prices or anything about them.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

I use a Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G Micro lens, and it is my favorite walk around and portrait lens.
Is there an echo in here.

jcboy3

Sigma 150 f2.8 is usually $1100, but if you shop around you can get it for close to $950. For full frame, the 150-200mm range is better for working distance.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Depending on your exact subject and lighting requirements, longer focal lengths are mostly preferred starting - with 100/105 and going up. The longer lengths will also give more artistic blur to the backrounds.

Bob Boner

I recommend a longer focal length than 100mm. I do a lot of macro work, have both a 100mm and a 180mm, and the latter gets by far the most use. If you are interested in photographing insects, the longer focal lengths allow more lens to subject distance per magnification. This keeps you from scaring away as many of your subjects. For nikon, I have used their 200mm macro and highly recommend it. The Sigma 150mm also has a very good reputation, but I have never used it.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Actually, most macro lenses have very good image quality. That's the least of your concerns. Look to other features to make your decision.

Depending upon what small subjects you want to shoot, you may prefer a longer focal length... 150mm, 180mm or even 200mm. With crop sensor cameras I usually recommend 90mm, 100mm or 105mm as a good, versatile focal length. But D610 is full frame, so you might want a bit longer FL, especially if your subjects are really shy... or sting or bite! (I use a 300mm sometimes for close-up and near macro shots... with and without macro extension rings.)

If you are planning to work on a tripod a lot, a lens that has a tripod mounting ring can be really useful. Few 90, 100 or 105mm can even be fitted with one optionally, while most 150mm, 180mm and 200mm include a tripod ring.

Image stabilization is available on a lot of macro lenses today... Just have reasonable expectations of it. The higher the magnification, the less effective any form of stabilization tends to be. By 1:1, it's almost nil. But it can be helpful at lower magnifications and when using the lens for non-macro purposes.

Macro lenses also tend to be slower focusing for a couple reasons. One is simply that they have to move their focusing elements a long, long way to go all the way from infinity to 1:1. The other is by design. Due to the shallow depth of field at macro mags, most macro lenses have "long throw" focus, which emphasizes precision over speed.

This might not matter much for a lot of macro shooting. It's often easier and faster to use manual focus techniques, instead of autofocus. The autofocus performance of the lens may be more important when using the lens for non-macro purposes. Two things can help with focus speed: One is a ring or ultrasonic or silent wave type of focus drive, which is usually faster than micro motor. The other is a focus limiter, which some macro lenses have, while others don't. Some limiters are more sophisticated than others, too, offering 3 or four focus ranges vs just 2 ranges.

The lens' max aperture may be another consideration effecting versatility. For example, many macro lenses overlap popular portrait focal lengths, in which case a larger aperture lens might be nice. Among macro lenses in the focal length ranges from 90mm to 200mm, the largest aperture I'm aware of is a 100mm f2.0 lens from Zeiss... Superb quality, but it's manual focus only and rather pricey. There are several f2.8, but some of the longer focal lengths drop to f3.5 or f4. Again, this is usually not of much concern for macro purposes, but may be something to think about if planning to use the lens for other purposes, too.

Price might be the ultimate consideration. How much do you want to spend? Typically OEM lenses are the more expensive and third party can be more affordable. However, OEM also often hold their value best.

Basically, your choices are:

Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 ($500)
Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 VC USD ($750, stabilized, ultrasonic)
Tokina AT-X 100mm f2.8 ($380)
Rokinon/Samyang 100mm f2.8 ($550, manual focus only)
Zeiss 100mm f2.0 ($1550, manual focus only)
Nikkor AF-S 105mm f2.8 VR ($980, stabilized, silent wave)
Nikkor AF 105mm f2.8 ($800)
Sigma DG 105mm f2.8 OS HSM ($770, stabilized, ultrasonic)
Sigma DG 150mm f2.8 OS HSM ($1100, stabilized, ultrasonic, tripod ring)
Sigma DG 180mm f2.8 OS HSM ($1700, stabilized, ultrasonic, tripod ring)
Tamron SP 180mm f3.5 ($750, tripod ring)
Nikkor AF 200mm f4 ($1800, tripod ring)

Have fun shopping!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I welcome you to check out the UHH True Macro Forum. Lots of helpful information and helpful posters.

I have the 105G VR-- and it's a fine lens. I get plenty close with the 105. If you have interest in the "science of the critters" you'll find you can get close enough if you are patient. Enough about focal length…. If I were buying today, I would seriously consider the Sigma 105… it's several hundred dollars less than the Nikkor AND it has three focus-limiter options for AF. Of course many macro photographers shoot manual focus…but if you wish to shoot past an age when your vision starts to go, you'll eventually opt for AF. The latest macro lenses/DSLRs are quite good in their AF.

I would also consider the 150 Sigma. I would also not hesitate to shop for a used lens at B&H or KEH. KEH is generous in their ratings…so if they say "excellent" that's what you'll get.

Again, please browse the UHH True Macro forum. The guys/gals on there do macro daily

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

Allen

Old44

Thanks everybody. I appreciate the very good advice.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

I too would suggest consulting Macro photographers about equipment for macro. The 100mm range is most popular. I highly recommend looking at The Sigma 105 to start. I use my 150 the most but, it's a little harder to steady when handholding and the 180 is even more so. The longer focal lengths do afford much better working distances though.

We hope to see your work in the True Macro section. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

Good luck :wink:

gym Loc: Athens, Georgia

The macro board here is a very active one, and I'm sure they'd love to see some of your work. The group there is very collegial, very helpful, and very talented.