Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

If you do research on the Tokina 100 F2.8 Macro you will find it to be one of the best lens money can buy for any price or brand. They stay sold out and I had to get on a waiting list to get mine. It is a FX lens in case you ever go full frame.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Ask yourself how much you would use these two lenses. Actually, a new 35mm f1.8 in not inexpensive in itself and on a D7200 would give you a range of field of 52.5 degrees, just about 1:1. However, if you get a good zoom like the 28-300mm, you may find that you have this covered. If you're not into macro, I'd consider using the money towards a 28-300mm.

napabob Loc: Napa CA

here is the page of macro setups from the macro section................

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-32754-1.html

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Mt Shooter recommended the Tokina to me when I was looking for a macro and I couldn't be happier with it. Great lens!

Jerry Green Loc: Huntsville, AL

I shoot a lot of macro and get very good results with the 40 mm DX and 85 mm DX macros with a D7200 and D500. Also have the 105 mm f/2.8 VR and the 200 mm f/4 so have something to compare with.
Sometimes I use the Kenco Pro extension tubes with all these lens and a Nikon 1.4X III teleconverter with the 105 mm VR for about 150 MM. Lots of possibilities with these lens

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If someone is asking about macro lenses, doesn't that suggest it's something that the want to get "into"?

One reason to get a true macro lens is because it can shoot much higher magnification images than any 28-300mm. Most modern macro lenses also will be a great deal sharper than a "do everything" zoom, too.

In fact, image quality of a modern macro lens is one of your least concerns. Most are excellent. There's little doubt all the Micro Nikkors are.... Nikon has a long history of making optically excellent macro lenses. As far as image quality is concerned though, it's hard to go wrong with any major brand.

Both the lenses in this bundle are DX models. That means they are designed for the APS-C crop sensor cameras like the D7200 specifically, cannot cover the full frame sensor of FX cameras. Although the DX lenses will fit and work on most Nikon FX, it will be in DX mode only, where there's a significant reduction in image resolution.... For example, a 24MP FX camera such as the D750 cropped to DX makes for about 10MP images. A 36MP FX camera holds up a bit better, producing 15MP images in DX mode.

On a D7200 APS-C camera, the 35/1.8 lens will serve and behave just like a "standard" 50mm lens on full frame. Standard lenses like this.... well, some people love em... others don't. Comes down to personal preference, really. It used to be what was supplied with all 35mm film SLRs, back in the day.

The advantages a prime like this offers over typical zooms include its larger aperture (f1.8 compared to f2.8 on more expensive zooms, f3.5 or slower on many zooms). With the prime lens like the 35/1.8, you're gaining one or two stops for low light shooting... but thanks to that larger aperture you also can blur down backgrounds more strongly. It also is a lot smaller, lighter and less attention-grabbing than many zooms.

The 85mm macro lens also sounds like a good deal... I don't use it but have a couple general comments.

First, it's an f3.5 lens. That helps it be reasonably priced and compact, but makes it a little less useful for other purposes such as portraits. While it certainly can be used for non-macro purposes, it will be a bit limited in ability to blur down backgrounds. Most 85mm portrait lenses offer f2, f1.8 or even f1.4 or f1.2 max apertures (but they also aren't macro capable).

The 85/3.5 Micro lens is IF or "internal focusing". That's a good thing and means the lens doesn't extend longer when focused closer. Many macro lenses do, but this cuts into the working distance between the front of the lens and your subjects, when shooting at the higher magnifications. Shy bugs might flee, when you are looming over them up close.... But even with more cooperative subjects such as flowers, you risk casting a shadow over them, when you don't have enough working distance. IF also means the front barrel of the lens remains fixed, doesn't rotate when focused the way some do. That's a good thing, too, if using a filter such as a circular polarizer, which changes strength when rotated.

It also is an AF-S "Silent Wave Motor" model, which might help with focusing speed. By their very nature, most macro lenses are slower focusing (compared to similar focal length, non-macro lenses). This is because, for one thing, they need to move their focusing elements a long, long way to be able to go all the way from infinity to full 1:1 magnification. Macro lenses also tend to use "long throw" focus, which emphasizes accuracy over speed. This because at higher magnifications depth of field gets really shallow and a high degree of focus precision is needed. In addition to a faster focusing motor, to help offset the other factors that slow down focus with a macro lens, many also use a Focus Limiter. This is a switch where you can opt to have the lens to only focus within a certain range, or have it work over the entire range from infinity to 1:1 even though it's slower. The 85/3/5 does not appear to have a Focus Limiter, while many other macro lenses do.

The 35/1.8 also has a Silent Wave motor and is probably a lot faster focusing than the Micro lens, because it doesn't need to move it's focusing elements anywhere near as much, doesn't even try to focus to as high a magnification.

And, the 85/3.5 has VR image stabilization. That can be helpful, although at higher magnification you shouldn't expect too much from it. On any lens, stabilization just can't do all that much at full 1:1. Often a tripod or at least a monopod is still need for high mag macro shooting. But stabilization can be more effective and helpful for lower magnification, non-macro purposes such as portraiture. Especially on telephoto lenses, which are naturally harder to hold steady. And, here it doesn't seem to be adding to the cost! So, what the heck!

The 35/1.8 doesn't have VR, but as a shorter focal length is likely a lot easier to hand hold steady. You can probably use 1/50 shutter speed with little camera shake blur problems.

85mm is a reasonable focal length for macro work with a DX format camera. It's a good compromise of adequate working distance and hand-holdability. There are shorter macro focal lengths... but they tend to put you awfully close to your subject. There are also longer, but anything much over 105mm becomes really hard to get a steady shot'. Plus, at higher magnifications, you have to stop the lens down quite a bit, in search of enough depth of field. And, stopping down to really small apertures risks some loss of image quality to diffraction, at the same time it exacerbates steadying the lens adequately, forcing you to use slower shutter speeds and/or higher ISOs. For these reasons, with a DX camera I usually recommend a macro focal length between 60mm and 105mm (and between 90mm and 105mm on FX/full frame)... especially for someone buying their first or only macro lens, and wanting to use it for a wide range of purposes.

And, the 85mm has a distance/magnification scale. That can be a handy feature on a lens. (The 35/1.8 doesn't have this).

Compared to some other lenses, the f3.5 max aperture and lack of a Focus Limiter make the 85mm a little less "dual purpose", not quite as useful for non-macro purposes such as portraiture, even though it's being marketed for that purpose by the retailer. Even though it has a larger aperture, the 35/1.8 isn't really a "traditional, short telephoto" portrait lens, either. Sure, both lenses can be used for portraiture and many other things. But they are just not quite what's normally expected in a "portrait lens". The price for the bundle certainly seems right! Normally the 85/3.5 Micro DX alone sells for more than $500. So you are basically getting the 35/1.8 for free.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

amfoto...If you'll read my post, one of the questions that I asked was how often the O.P. would use those lenses. If he/she is into macro, that would answer that question. If not, it also answers the question, which is why I suggested an alternative use for his money. If not, he could stick the 28-300mm on his D7200 and never take it off.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

More research would have helped your article greatly though Mark...

The Nikkor 105 f/2.8G lens is specified as going from f/2.8 wide open to f/32 stopped all the way down. It doesn't have an aperture ring, so those are not barrel markings but rather the correct specification. The specifications are when focused at infinity. That is essentially true of all 105mm f/2.8 macro lenses. And at 1:1 magnification they may indicate f/32 but are actually at f/64.

You are not citing specifications, but the in camera indicator readings for fstop. With Nikon that is the effective aperture, not the real aperture. The formula for effective aperture is
At 1:1 magnification the actual lens aperture is still f/32, but the effective aperture is f/64. Note that f/64 is correct for determining exposure, and f/32 is correct for determining DOF. Of course the real significance is that the lens at 1:1 magnification is no longer a 105mm focal length, but more like 76.5mm. (The actual size of the diaphragm opening does not change, so if the fstop did it has to be the focal length that causes it.)

On a broader scale the significance is that every single 105mm f/2.8 lens, if focused close enough to get 1:1 magnification, will have an effective aperture of twice the specified aperture (which means twice the barrel markings, and it may or may not be what the camera displays depending on which model of camera). That is true of modern macro lenses and it is true of those made 30 or 40 years ago too.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

agreed, as the focusing distance moves farther from the film plane, it becomes time to get the tape measure out!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Really, why? I use actual Pentax Macro lenses, tubes, and bellows, both K-mount and Screw-mount versions. Is that uncool, must a use a fake macro-zoom lens?

What is with the word "research" now on the UHH, cliched now like GAS was a year ago?

napabob Loc: Napa CA

if you use them where are the pictures?...............a total of 49 new topics and not a one of macro, thanks for your advice . Brenda at least shoots and posts her pictures...........and doesn't just talk about em............

srfmhg Loc: Marin County, CA

I also have a d7200 and both of these lenses which I bought separately. I love both lenses and I'd grab them at this price.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

So Bob, are you saying that I should be cautious of advice on sports photography from someone that doesn't go to any games?

GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI

I've been reading a lot about maco on this forum and elsewhere and just looked at Nikon's 105/2.8 & 60/2.8 macro lenses. There's a $300 difference in price. You just made my decision easier...the 105 is worth a little more for a LOT better lens.

Thank you 👍

EDIT: The specs for this lens say minimum aperture is f/32

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

True, but that is when focused at infinity. If focused to provide a 1:1 image on the sensor the effective aperture is then f/64.

The effective aperture is the one to use for exposure, and also to calculate diffraction. Hence f/64 is very significant for image quality.