steveoliveira

I shoot mainly landscape and nature, but I've wanted to get into macro photography for a while now.
My camera is a Nikon D7500, and I am not sure which lens I should get ... as there are so many different types.

What would be a good all-around lens for macro photography?
What focal length is best? Is a zoom or prime better?

Any advice or suggestions will be appreciated.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

A very good one is the Macro Tamron 90mm f2.8. On this forum, the Tokina 100mm f2.8, has received much praise too. There is also a Macro section on this forum with many qualified photographers that would offer help, and answer any questions. Good luck.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I am a Macro shooter. I have a ss, 105 and 200 Micro Nikor. Nikon calls it Micro. All 3 are great lenses. SUPER sharp. The issue is the distance from your macro subject. I use my 105 most. Bought the 200 for dragon fly's

Welcome to UHH

steveoliveira

Thank you very much. I will check out the macro section.

steveoliveira

Good information. Thank you very much. I appreciate it!

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I can't speak to the Nikon lenses as I am a Canon shooter. My favorite macro is the Tamron 180 f/3.5. The critics go after the slow and noisy AF and lack of stabilization. Then they admit it produces great pictures when used right. As one reviewer put it - "Use it like a Pro."
I have used it alone on a 6D FF and on the 7DII and 80D APS-Cs with a 1.4x which gets me up to the Angle Of View of a 403* mm lens. Works well for hummers at the feeder and stand off for bees and butterflies. Both those bodies will AF at f/8.0 (so will your 7100) so AF works. When used on a tripod stabilization isn't really needed, when at high SS for hummers it isn't needed either. I sometimes just manually pre-focus and wait for the hummer, bee or butterfly to hover or land on the focus point.

It is about 1/2 the price of other brands 150-200 mm macros.

*AOV of a 378 mm for your 7100

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

Any Nikon lens with macro is good, but the most popular range is around 100mm. that lets you back up a bit from wasps, but is not so long that you introduce even more blur from shake. I am used to using extension tubes or bellows on relatively inexpensive enlarging lenses or copy lenses (Artar, Claron, etc.), and these tubes can be used on ordinary good prime lenses--but I admit the auto-focus of proper lenses is good for macro when it is not a careful setup. I bought several books (and read them) on this topic before I went and bought equipment, because the nature of your work might influence the equipment. I use Canon, and I just have one prime Canon lens that has macro focus (60mm), and that would be fine if I did not already have a bunch of lenses that can also be used.

Bill_de Loc: US

With high resolution bodies will true macro lenses become less important. If you shoot 1to1 with a 20mp camera or 1to2 with a 40mp camera, won't you be able to make the same size prints? I fool around with macro once in a while, but don't know the ins and outs.

--

freddusel Loc: Nashville

My favorite is a Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2.0 makro7planar ZF which is engineered to fit Nikon F mounts. It is a manual focus lens and is blazingly sharp, especially at f4.0. I use it on a Sony a7rII which will display the weakness of any lens focused upon its sensor.
Best, Fred

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

40, 60, 100, 200. OH, so many great choices. I have owned them all and now I just have MY favorite, the 60 mm D. Yes, still in my bag and it's the one I use most often. And, from ebay, you can get a great deal.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1312.R1.TR10.TRC1.A0.H0.X+Nikon+60+.TRS1&_nkw=nikon+60mm+f%2F2.8d+af+micro-nikkor+lens&_sacat=0

CO

Also check out the Nikon 85mm f/3.5 VR DX micro lens. Since it's a DX lens it's more compact and lighter than full frame lenses. It won't be as front heavy on your D7500. I get very sharp images with it on my D7000.

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

Consider getting a 150, 180 or 200mm macro, unless you are shooting at very close distances, like in a studio or tight situations. For bugs and other outdoor natural subjects you will appreciate the extra working distance.

Sensor resolution will not have an effect on the magnfication, but it will allow you to magnify a 1:2 image, using cropping, to simulate the magnification of the 1:1 image. This will work best when you start out with a very high resolution lens, which usually means a true macro. A zoom lens with closeup capability is not nearly as sharp and well corrected as a true macro, so the answer to your question is no, true macros are even more relevant with high resolution bodies.

That being said, to validate your point, I took these with a 150-600mm Sigma Sport. Not macro, but I did have 15 ft or so of working distance.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

U-Tube "theoria apophasis" AKA Ken Wheeler Is the Guru on Nikon and Fujifilm cameras and lenses.

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

Great shots Gene. Beautiful color and sharp as a tack.

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

Macro is my niche. Since you have the D7500, you can even use the older manual focus macro lenses. I have 8 different MF & AF macro lenses from various manufacturers with focal lengths ranging from 55 to 180mm. They are all "Prime" lenses. There were only a few true macro zooms made and they have all been discontinued and only available on the used market. You will see many zoom lenses marked as being macro, but they do not get to life-sized images, nor are they flat field lenses. As for AF & VR, neither are very effective at anything beyond 1/2 life size. Even the manufacturer's literature packed with new lenses notates that. Tripods are good for static subjects or studio use but are limiting in the field. If shooting insects, most have moved away by the time you get set up. I use either a ring light or Speedlight when shooting macro. The additional light allows one to stop down for more DOF (pitifully small as it is) and the added benefit of the short duration of the flash freezing any motion, be it your own or the subjects (makes up for VR +). I have yet to find any true macro that doesn't give good images. When shooting macro, technique trumps gear. Focal length is more of a consideration. 55-60mm lenses are good for copy work or static subjects, but focus so close to the end of the lens that lighting becomes an issue. 150-200mm lenses allow one more working distance, but at the expense of being bigger, heavier & more costly. A macro in the 90-105mm range is the best of both worlds.. I use an older manual focus 105mm F2.8 from my film days as my go-to macro lens. I shoot entirely in manual (including the ring or Speedlight via power levels). No issues with scaring insects away. You do need to learn your subjects mannerisms in order to be successful in getting quality images. Many will say that one lens scores higher on bench tests. Yes, some will but that's bench testing, not real world shooting. The OEM lenses will command higher prices and retain value better, but I have found that optically they all do well. Just as proof of my statement, look at the different macro's being suggested in this thread. If you want to see what older equipment is capable of, here is a link to my albums over on Flick...https://www.flickr.com/photos/screaminscott/albums