Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Add to that, loss of infinity focus with either tubes or close up lenses (filter type), time lost having to attach/remove tubes/filters & lack of variable magnification (aids in composition). Follow Nikonians advice & visit the True Macro Forum. Lots of examples & plenty of advice available there. Look for users who post images or have links to images as many people will give advice but not shoot much macro. Also look at the Close Up Forum as that may be what you are wanting to shoot & not true macro (life size images). I have numerous macro lenses as well as tubes, close up filters, bellows, etc. (I'm hooked on macro image attached). That said, macro isn't for everyone & has it's own set of problems. Dipping your feet in the way you are is a good start to see if it's for you. Oh, the Raynox macro lenses are a good way to start as well.

(Download)

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I got a Tokina 100mm Macro for my D7000. Much handier than fiddling with tubes and stuff. It's $369 at B&H. I'm happy with it.

hobocamp Loc: Pittsford, New York

I recently acquired an AF MICRO NIKKOR 105mm 1:2.8 D on ebay for under $300 and am very happy with it. You have the option of being further from your subject that with the 60mm for often little more $$. I am shooting with a D7100.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"Tokina 100mm Macro" Amazing worth/value of investment... I have/love this optic and use it primarily for portraiture... it is at least 1/2 T-Stops faster than many other offerings in this focal length range... DxOMark rates it at the zenith of comparable micro/macro lenses in the 100mm-105mm range... For anyone wanting to maximize quality and minimize cost nothing else comes close...

Yes the AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 D is also a viable option albeit it is a little soft wide open and I find it less useful for portraiture because of this... But stopped down it is superb especially for the price used...

No the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 and AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 D don't have OS; IS or VR but seriously folks for macro you are going to either be on a Tripod (in studio) or using speedlight(s) in the field... Note: You will quickly find it is subject movement at 1:1 that is limiting in the field so effectively deploying flash is what many who shoot commercially use here... But this may be more art than science requiring defused light modifiers to achieve natural results... illumination is key, not the optic when shooting in the field... experience is a brutal teacher....

As other have mentioned might look at the Macro Forum albeit seems like it's primarily hobbyist that are way over represented there... Not seeing much if any commercial work... Maybe I didn't look hard enough... Is anyone on UHH currently shooting jewelry or other marketable product?

Oh, btw Tokina actually has produced lenses that currently dominate the marketplace... the 11-16mm f/2.8 is a gem... I have the older screwdriver version and it is superb... while not macro it speaks of Tokina's forte in lens design/construction... enough said.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Buying a used macro lens is a good idea. Plus, it's hard not to find a macro lens that doesn't deliver. It's a matter of technique as opposed to gear that gets you good images. Of the macro lenses I own (9 MF & AF models), my goto lens is an older 105mm F2.8 MF macro. Note that on your camera, you would be shooting entirely in manual since it is a vase model. That said, even though mine will meter (& some will AF) I still shoot entirely in manual.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Extension tubes have their place. Some "macro" lenses really aren't macro (between 1:1 and 10:1 reproduction ratio). To get one of those lenses from 1:4 or 1:2 down to 1:1 or better, you NEED a set of extension tubes, or better yet, a bellows unit.

There are all sorts of ways to use extension tubes and bellows. You can mount a normal lens on them, perhaps reversing it to get better optical performance. You can mount an enlarging lens on a bellows, and focus by moving the camera, while adjusting the bellows to change the magnification. Hop on over to the http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html (TRUE Macro Photography forum) or http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-113-1.html (CLOSE UP Photography forum) for tons of dialogs on macro and close-up work.

That said, I always have a macro lens around for copy work and extreme close-ups. There's nothing better. They are usually apochromatic, flat-field, distortion-controlled lenses that are VERY sharp at close focusing distances.

I also have a set of screw-on filter-like diopters in +1, +2, and +4 strength. They act like magnifying glasses, and turn a lens into a "close-up" lens. They are NOT well-corrected, which is fine if you want a dreamy, soft sort of effect. I don't normally use them for "accurate" work, I use them for special effects.

There are three ranges of macro lens commonly available. Referenced to full frame (24x36mm) sensor format, they are 50 to 60mm, 90 to 105mm, and 120 to 150mm. The shorter lenses are best for copy work, and any kind of product photography where you need to be close to the subject so you can manipulate it. The longer lenses are most useful for insects, arachnids, bugs, and other wildlife that you might not want to approach closely. Since most of my work involves documenting processes and machine operations, I use the short ones (30mm on Micro 4/3, equivalent to 60mm on full frame). I also have a 55mm that I use with an adapter; it has a 110mm effective field of view on Micro 4/3.

When I was in college, a friend of mine found a 1960s model 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor on a beach in NJ. He gave it to me because he didn't know if it was any good, and he wasn't a photographer. (It isn't a microphotography OR macrophotography lens, because it only gets down to 1:2. But Nikon sold a special extension ring that goes to 1:1, to make it macro (barely).) I sent it to Nikon, (EPOI at the time) and they cleaned it up and re-lubricated it. It still works great, 42 years later. Having that lens convinced me to get rid of my 50mm f/1.4 prime, so I traded it on another lens. I had all kinds of fun photographing odd bits of nature at very close distances. Later, I got the f/2.8 version of the lens, which I also still have.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Those $30 (and and other similar or even cheaper) macro extension tubes do not have either electronic nor the "screw drive" connectivity, so your autofocus lenses will be manual focus only. That's usually okay, because a lot of the time it's easier to do macro work with manual focus, anyway.

But, much worse, with those "cheapies" there also will be no means of adjusting the lens aperture on any lens that relies upon electronic aperture control (such as Nikkor "G"). If you have a lens with a mechanical aperture control, i.e. it's set with a ring on the lens itself, that will be fine. But with any "G" or "gelded" lenses you will only be able to use the aperture wide open, which makes for extremely shallow depth of field at close focusing distances.

I would have recommended spending a little more for the type of extension tubes that have the electronic contacts for aperture control of all lenses... such as these: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NVRCDYU?psc=1

Personally I use the Kenko tube set, which also fully support AF and aperture control, and are higher quality materials and better design: https://www.amazon.com/Kenko-Extension-Nikon-Lenses-EXTUBEDG-N/dp/B000MT1FNU/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1488817337&sr=1-2 (mine are Canon mount, but otherwise the same).

Macro extension tubes are very versatile and handy to have. I've always made a point of having a set in my camera bag, since learning to use them some 25 or 30 years ago. They can be used with many different lenses to make them closer focusing.

Even though they're versatile, you have to practice with and learn what they can do with different lenses and the extension tubes have their limitations... In most cases you're forcing a lens to focus closer than it's designed to do, which can compromise image quality to some extent (depends upon the specific lens, distance and aperture used). The longer the lens focal length, the more extension that's needed to have a significant increase in magnification. As an example of how they can effect images, this was done with a 25mm extension tube on a 50mm "normal" lens...



In the above image there's a lot of vignetting and softness in the corners, caused by making a lens focus far closer than it's intended. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though. I used it deliberately for the above.

A true macro lens will generally make for better image quality, plus will usually be faster and more convenient to work with. It also might offer higher magnification than possible with a non-macro lenses plus extension tubes.

You mention the Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 macro lens and that's a good one with a long, long history. I use a manual focus Tamron 90mm from the 1980s and it still works great...



The older version of the Tamron used for the above has 1:2 max magnification (half life size, which allows it to be quite compact), unless an extension is added. I used it combined with a 25mm extension tube for the above shot. The aperture on this old lens is manually adjusted, too, and in this case was set at f11 to increase depth of field (can be used in Manual or Aperture Priority auto exposure... not in Program or Shutter Priority AE). That makes setup a little slower and causes a pretty dim viewfinder and capturing a shot of a quick, moving subject can be pretty challenging.

That old 90mm Tamron cost me all of $20 at a local second hand store. To to use it on my Canon cameras I had to spend another $40 to get an Adaptall2 mount for it from China.(This vintage lens is part of a series designed to use easily interchanged mounts and to be adaptable to almost any brand of SLR/DSLR... Personally I also have Adaptall2 to fit Canon FD, Nikon F, Konica AR and Pentax K/AR vintage cameras.) Over they years I've used several of the Tamron 90mm and knew they were excellent. So when I saw one in very good condition for very little money, I jumped on it! It's not as fast and convenient to use as some more modern AF capable macro lenses I use, but the image quality is fine.

The modern Tamron SP 90mm macro lens is full 1:1 and actually comes in two varieties, both with autofocus and aperture control. There's a cheaper version that isn't internal focusing and doesn't have image stabiliztion (which is okay, since it's not very effective at high magnifications anyway). The other Tamron 90mm is internal focusing (doesn't increase in length when focused closer), has higher performance USD focus drive and a Focus Limiter, as well as VC (vibration control) stabilization. Both are full frame capable lenses (FX), so are usable on both FX and DX cameras.

Tamron also makes a compact SP 60mm f2.0 Macro lens (DX). I use one of these and it's bigger than usual aperture makes it double better than most macro as a portrait lens. Like the cheaper 90mm, it uses a lower performance auto focus drive that's fine for macro and portraits, but not fast enough for sports or other action shooting. The Tammy 60mm is internal focusing and quite compact, but is "crop only" (which would be fine on your camera).

Yet another Tamron macro currently available is an SP 180mm. Also a fine lens that gives more working space, but is considerably larger and a lot more difficult to use handheld.

There actually are a lot of very good macro lenses.

Tokina 100mm f2.8 AT-X is one of the least expensive. One problem is that it's an AF-D type lens, so won't be able to autofocus on a D5300 camera.

Sigma makes several macros: 50mm f2.8 (compact), 105mm f2.8 OS USD, 150mm f2.8 OS USD, and 180mm f2.8 OS USD. All these will autofocus on your camera and are "DG", which means they can be used on FX cameras, as well as a DX model like yours.

Nikon themselves offer several excellent macro (they call them "Micro"). "AF-S" type that can autofocus on your camera include: 40mm f2.8 DX, 60mm f2.8 DX, 85mm f3.5 DX and 105mm f2.8 IF VR FX. Once again, manual focus is often fine for macro work, so you might also consider AF-D type or even vintage Nikkors, which can be excellent lenses.

For most people, I recommend the moderate focal lengths... 90mm to 105mm is a good compromise of working distance, hand-holdability and versatility for general macro shooting purposes. 50mm to 85mm macro lenses are more compact, but put you a lot closer to your subjects at the highest magnifications.... may be fine for indoor tabletop studio work, but can be too close for shy critters or those that sting or bite! Typically a 35mm, 40mm or 50mm macro will have roughly 6" or less minimum focus distance (MFD). 60mm will have about 9", while 90/100/105mm will have about "12, and a 180mm lens makes for about 18" minimum focus distance (MFD). Keep in mind that MFD is measured from the film/sensor plane of the camera... so some of the distance is occupied partially by the camera and the lens itself, as well as any attachments to the front of the lens (hoods, macro flash) or any extension tubes installed behind it to increase magnification.

Have fun experimenting with macro.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Eric, if you have guessed from the answers so far, no, you did not screw up. At $30, you are able to start into close-up and macro without breaking the bank. The diopters and tubes have their plus (cheap way into macro) and minus (have to take off and on). For now, use what you have and learn from them. If you want to continue, you will have a better ideal of why and what you want to buy, have saved the money, and will have spent your money wisely once you buy.

IsoBob Loc: Hamilton, NJ

As usual a brilliant response from you. Did you figure it out all by yourself? You're not helping anyone, just annoying them.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And you clearly don't understand how to stay on topic and offer help, and how severely lacking you are in manners and politeness categories. If he had the answers, there would be no point in posting the questions looking for help.

On the other hand, in the interest of being helpful, you may want to pick up a copy of this book:

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=zdmBCgAAQBAJ&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gclid=CMC6xYW9wtICFYyjNwodoloPlw&gclsrc=ds

blackest Loc: Ireland

You can get the original here

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39293

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

My experience has been that macro is a specialized technique that I was either very much into, or couldn't be bothered with. Those feelings wax and wane, so the $30 expense is probably going to give you the tools for you to find out your level of interest without great expense. As in everything in photography the expense can be what you may not want to afford.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

-----

You didn’t screw up. But, don’t expect much from the cheap equipment you ordered. Try out macro photography. If you like it, buy a dedicated 1:1 macro lens. Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma all make good ones. One in the 100mm range will probably work best for you and also serve as a short telephoto lens.

-----

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Eric,
Please remember that we are all here for everyone but the personalities are as diverse as the population of the world. Please do not let that stop you from asking questions no matter how simplistic they may seem to others - they are not simplistic for you. If necessary you can contact me and others through PM (Private Message). If we don't have the answer, we will do the best to direct you to someone who does.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

I use extension tubes with my macro lenses - Nikon's 105 and 60mms