Rayjenks

What do you think is a good macro for full frame the sigma 105, sigma 150, the Tamron 90 or something else the sigma art ens has a 70 macro but not for the Nikon yet I have a 105 but not a macro, I know I can use tubes or close up filters but would wather have a true macro

Charlie'smom

I have a Tokina 100 macro that I just love.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

You might consider posting that question on the UHH True Macro-Photography Forum at:

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

Here is my answer. I rented 3 different macro lenses, each for a weekend. I kept the images in my Macro Compairson folder. At the end of that experiment I knew definitely which lens I preferred.

PeterBergh

Don't keep us in suspense! Which one did you prefer?

User ID

`



I heartily disagree. Chances are you should
post HERE:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-113-1.html

I'm steering you away from hidebound narrow
minded makro-geekdom to the general "close
up" forum. Why ? The geeks have silly rules.
How so ? Here's how so:

Those "true macro" lenses you're interested in ?
They focus from infinity down thru "arm's length"
all the way to 1:1 [a useless spec in modern use
of small formats including "FF"]. Anywho, all the
lenses in that genre END at 1:1. Well, the "true
macro" geeks INSIST that macro BEGINS at 1:1,
right where your new lens [whatever brand] will
END, at its near focus limit.

Soooo ..... for the general use of "macro lenses"
whose close up abilities are designed for typical
close up enthusiasts, who work at arm's length
down to a few inches [approx 1:1], you wanna
be seeking advice in the appropriate forum, the
"Close Up", not the "True Macro".

Read the FAQ/intro posts for "True Macro" and
you'll see what I mean. Or ... just click here:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-97516-1.html




`

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

How about what not to buy. I picked up a Nikkor 60mm f2.8 G ED. It gets good reviews, is very sharp, but the 1:1 distance is 7.2", so its tough to get enough light in between the lens and the thing you want to photograph without shadows. Another thing is that it is only f 2.8 at focus distance of infinity. It is actually f4.8 at 1:1 or minimum focus distance. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten some very good results with it, but am looking at the Tamron 90 f2.8 macro to replace it. Minimum focus distance is a foot and it gets higher ratings than the equivalent Nikon.

User ID

`



Are you aware that if it were a traditional macro
such as old "Micro Nikkors" or any of the similar
classic macro lenses, then f:2.8 would be f:5.6
at 1:1 ? It's simple physics.

FWIW, any 60mm f:2.8 lens slows only to f:4.8
at 1:1 is signifying that it shortens its actual FL
in order to focus closer .... rather than relying
solely on extending the glass further from the
"film plane". IOW, it means your 60mm macro
is approximately a 45mm macro. It's a 60mm
genral purpose lens, but is shorter for macro. It
is the reason you have so little working distance
in the macro range ... the FL gets shorter as it
focuses closer.

That is the nature of internal focus. My 28-300
has IF, and at its near limit, even tho the zoom
ring says 300mm, the real FL is about 140mm.
At 6 or 7 feet, it's about 200. No problem if you
are doing a head shots with my zoom, but real
annoying with your 1:1 macro lens :-(

A traditional 300mm lens at about 5 or 6 ft will
FILL the frame [24x36 "FF"] with a dollar bill.
Here's the 28-300 zoom at "300mm" doing a
head shot at about 5 feet. If you've ever used
a classic 135 tele on a film camera, you would
recognize that this is about the same thing. It's
just the nature of internal focus.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I’m sorry I did not want to start a web fight or derail OPs topic but .. I liked the Micro Nikkor 105mm F2.8 the best.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Macros in general are all excellent, well corrected lenses for the job they do.
If you are a Nikon user the Nikon 105 f2.8 Micro Nikkor is your lens.

entobob53 Loc: St. Peters, Missouri

The main consideration for me is working distance. Since I photograph insects it is important not to spook the target with my lens. All are sharp but the 150 Sig keeps more distance

Largobob

I agree. Macros (or in Nikkor speak, "Micro"), are flat-plane lenses capable of sharp focus from corner to corner, edge to edge, at all focal distances. Additionally, they are capable of very close focus distances, which provides the magnification.

I own and use the Nikkor 105mm (AF-S MICRO NIKKOR 105mm 1:2.8G ED VR)....producing up to 1:1 magnification at about 12". This lens consistently generates very high-quality images on my Nikon cameras....both DX and FX. It is NOT lightweight nor inexpensive.

Caveat: There are specialized skills and techniques that must be learned and mastered when doing close-up/macro work....particularly hand-held with moving subjects. If you understand these techniques/factors (limited depth of field, lighting, shutter speed, etc) any good macro lens should do a great job. Personally, I would not go under about 100mm, and would probably prefer greater.

Other options to consider: There are a variety of excellent long lenses (both prime and zoom) with MACRO close focus capability. For instance, I have taken some interesting images with my 200-500 @ 500mm focused at about 6.5'. Some long lenses will actually focus closer.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I have the Nikon 105mm f2.8 which is a good all around lens, Nikon 60mm f2.8 good for flowers not for bugs, Sigma 150mm great all around lens for moving bugs, Sigma 180mm this is a heavy lens and does not attain focus fast and is very heavy, Tamron 180mm this is a lighter lens than the Sigma 180mm achieves focus faster than the Sigma 180 but slower than the Sigma 150mm and the Nikon macro lenses are faster achieving focus than the third party lenses.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

A heretical thought... Yes, I know you asked for a lens recommendation but... The Olympus Tough TG 5 has a macro mode that's tough to beat. You can get almost on top of your subject and the quality of the images is impressive. If you Google macro capability of Olumpus Tough TG 5 you'll find reviews and you tubes galore.

foxfirerodandgun Loc: Stony Creek, VA

While strictly being a hobbyist, and a Nikon person, I must say that I'm pleased with the performance of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro OS lens. It's my technique and choice of settings that I need to improve on. I had considered the Nikon Micro 105mm, however, after reading several comparisons of the two, and considering the difference in prices, I chose the Sigma.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Thanks, I am new to the macro world and this is very useful information.