Best micro lens
Jul 5, 2015 10:58:39 #
Jul 5, 2015 11:02:22 #
Old44 wrote:
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.
I don't shoot Nikon, but I would say right off, Nikkor Micro 105mm f2.8. If you don't need AF you should be able to find a vintage Nikkor Micro 105mm for a lot less. The old film lenses were like your FX lenses. I'm getting more limited too due to arthritis. Good luck.
Jul 5, 2015 11:12:20 #
Jul 5, 2015 11:59:26 #
Old44 wrote:
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.
Nikon 60mm or Nikon 105mm. Both super sharp only real difference, you have to get closer with the 60mm. I sometimes use a 2x converter on the 105 works great but have to focus manually.
Jul 5, 2015 12:11:14 #
Kiron 105 f/2.8 macro lens. Goes 1:1 and very well built. About $300.00 on the used market. As sharp as anything else out there. The Nikon 105 and Tamron 90 are excellent choices too.
Jul 5, 2015 12:27:40 #
My sentiments exactly. I have 9 different true macro lenses from Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, Lester Dine & Vivitar & they all give good results as long as proper technique is employed. Most are manual focus, but I do also have AF macro lenses. I never shoot macro in AF though... The factor to consider, as imagemeister says, is focal length, of which 90-105 is the most useful...
imagemeister wrote:
IMO, there is not $.10 difference between brands. There is considerable difference between focal lengths however.
Jul 5, 2015 12:31:39 #
I still use my old 55 micro nikkor on my old D300. I know it is manual, but with micro focusing is critical so the manual focusing work wonderfully.
Jul 5, 2015 13:03:03 #
Busch wrote:
Nikon 60mm or Nikon 105mm. Both super sharp only real difference, you have to get closer with the 60mm. I sometimes use a 2x converter on the 105 works great but have to focus manually.
Accordingly to the compatibility chart that I have seen, the 105mm does not autofocus when used with Teleconverters. But, the autofocus does work with a 1.4 TC on my 105.
Jul 5, 2015 13:38:39 #
Old44 wrote:
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.
Considering your criteria of budget and shooting full frame I recommend Manual Focus (AIS) Micro Nikkors. In your case (FF), either the 200mm F4 Micro or the 105 2.8 Micro. There are very good reasons for the recommendation of either. Shooting close up, either Macro or Micro, you will quickly learn to appreciate additional focal length as a friend, especially when compared to 50-55mm with FF. That said, the 105mm can also serve as a "superb" very useful med telephoto/portrait lens with decent speed. I will also tell you up front that in close up work, I can honestly say manual focusing is preferable over auto focus and manual focus Nikkors do it better. I myself have no aversion using manual focus lenses, except when AF is a definite need or advantage. A split image manual focus screen would also be a useful addition. No messing with focus points or overriding, just focus where you want, check the dof and done. Either of these lenses can be had for half or less of your budget. You can spend more but the results WILL NOT justify the expense.
As an aside, I use a cropped sensor Nikon and I recently picked up a like new "pristine" 55mm 2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor for about $130. It takes the spot in my lineup 85mm 2.0 filled with FF. At about 1.5-1.6x, it is my most used prime focal length. With a cropped sensor this thing is unbelievable, "Scary Sharp" right out to the farthest edges wide open, unlike any lens I've ever used. I am tickled silly with this lens even though I have two "normal" 50mm's. It even "feels" better. I now understand why this lens remains in the Nikon catalog after 32+ years. I think you might feel the same with the 105 or 200 with the 610.
Jul 5, 2015 13:53:52 #
Jul 5, 2015 13:53:54 #
Jul 5, 2015 13:53:56 #
Jul 5, 2015 14:14:10 #
imagemeister wrote:
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.
Unless you are absolutely going to 1:1, I prefer using a 70-200 f4 with a Canon 500D close up on the front ( or an extension tube) - also consider a 1.4X behind it. These will take you to 1:2 easily with zoom, AF, and good working distance.
Jul 5, 2015 14:25:01 #
imagemeister wrote:
Unless you are absolutely going to 1:1, I prefer using a 70-200 f4 with a Canon 500D close up on the front ( or an extension tube) - also consider a 1.4X behind it. These will take you to 1:2 easily with zoom, AF, and good working distance.
That's a great combo for closeup, but it might be difficult to fit with his <$1000 budget. I believe that lens is around $1400 but he might be able to find one used.
Jul 5, 2015 14:30:15 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
That's a great combo for closeup, but it might be difficult to fit with his <$1000 budget. I believe that lens is around $1400
but he might be able to find one used.
Yes, used or refurb is what I am thinking ....there are some new "deals" out there close to $1K.....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.