kurtb Loc: stroudsburg pa.

I currently have a Nikon 3100 and am looking to enter the world of macro photography. I am on a limited budget and have been looking at the Nikon 40mm and 60mm lenses. I also understand that Tamron has a good 60 mm lens. I am trying to stay under $400 and would appreciate advise on the pros and cons of these 2 lenses (Nikon vs. Tamron and 40mm vs. 60mm). Thanks!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Look at the Tamron 90mm Macro as well as the Nikon DX 85mm Micro. Both work extremely well and will give you a greater working distance than the ones you mentioned. The Nikon is a little over your budget but is still a very good choice.

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

My suggestion would be to look for a macro lens with a longer focal length. Maybe in the 100mm range length. The reason being that in the focal length you are looking at the working distance to your subject is very short which can make it more difficult to set up your shots. My first macro lens was a 50mm which I ended up giving to my son when I purchased a 100mm Canon Macro which I like very much. Have no suggestions on the brands you are looking at as I have no experience with them. I think you will like exploring macro photography.
Good Luck. :thumbup:

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

Do you particularly want the 40 or 60mm lens or would you consider another lens? Sigma has 5 macro telephoto lenses for under $500.00.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I would also throw the Sigma 85mm macro in the mix for consideration. ;)

amehta Loc: Boston

The older Nikon 105mm f/2.8D will not auto-focus with your camera, but it gives a good working distance and is amazingly sharp. Used, it's in your price range, KEH has one for $379.

amehta Loc: Boston

Feedback is here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-178726-1.html

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

I have both the 40 and 60...either one will do very nice.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Just remember your going to have to get very close to your subject to capture 1:1 type shooting.

amehta Loc: Boston

This topic got posted twice. More discussion is at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-178726-1.html. It might be better to not post here also.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Most macro-photographers baby their macro lenses. That means most used macro lenses are in excellent condition. Four years ago, I purchased a used Nikkor 105D for $400, then 2-years later purchased a Nikkor 105G for $800, which I plan to use for a very long time.

I strongly recommend that you consider a used Nikkor 105D, or a used Tamron 90-mm macro, or a used Tokina 100-mm macro, or a used Sigma 105-mm macro. ALL are excellent macro lenses, and the optimum focal length for field macro-photography.

kurtb Loc: stroudsburg pa.

Thanks everyone for your input! Sounds like some good advise for this Nikonnewbie

kurtb Loc: stroudsburg pa.

Thanks everyone for your input! Sounds like some good advise for this Nikonnewbie

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I have several macro lenses including the Nikon 50mm, 105 mm and 200 mm.

Short macros like the 50 mm and the 60 mm are not for general macro, you have to get too close to your subject to get a life sized shot. These are generally excellent for copy work instead.

The 200 mm is for subjects that you don't want to get near to photograph like aggressive bugs. It has a wonderful working distance that also leaves a lot of space for lighting options. Alas it doesn't have an image stabilizer and you can't do autofocus with your camera because it needs a focus motor in the camera, something your model lacks.

My favourite is the 105 mm. It is a compromise between the other two and includes an image stabilizer which prevents me from having to use a tripod all the time.

Since you have a DX camera the 85 mm DX lens would be comparable to what the 105 captures on my FX sensors. Basically it gives you about the same working distance. This is probably the lens of choice for a tight budget.

However be aware that if you ever go to a FX sensor you're going to have to replace it with the FX 105. It usually makes more sense to go for the 105 mm to begin with.

As to the Tamron, I can't comment personally, I've never used that brand. My lenses are all Nikons. However I did have a friend who had bought a Tamron once and then replaced it in the first year. I don't know why though. I've known other people who love them. I'd suggest you try the Tamron and a Nikon before you make any purchasing decisions.

In the photo business you generally do get what you pay for which is why I tend to prefer Nikon. They're more expensive but they're also durable, reliable and they create awesome images.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

I have the Nikkor 40mm Micro lens and it's great, good for other things as well...my other lens is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro which is brilliant but at around $1200 maybe more than you want to spend. Can probably be found cheaper around the traps.
For around or under $400 the 40mm is pretty good.