candle 57

I have a NikonD3100 and wanting to purchase a macro lens. I like taking close-ups of insects, flowers, anything small actually.

Any suggestions what type of lens would be good and not on the very expensive side, I hope.

Thanks for any suggestions.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

see:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-345896-1.html

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Greetings and welcome to the Hog.
I also have a D3100 and when I decided that I needed a macro lens, I went with the Tokina ATX PRO-D 100mm f/2.8. It's a great lens and is rated up there with Nikons' 105mm f/2.8 for quality and sharpness, and it's about $500.00 cheaper.
Check it out.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Why do people ask questions and then sign off?

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

So they can come back later and see if any one posted a reply?
Just sayin.
;)

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

I use the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G

Capture48 Loc: Arizona

Nikor 105 Micro f2.8

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Nikon 105mm 2.8G

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Candle, there is an entire section here on UHH dedicated to macro shooting, so you might want to look there (and do a search since you're not the first to ask this question). But for the sake of speed, allow me to offer a few thoughts:

You say "not on the very expensive side", but of course we don't know what you mean by that exactly. That said, I'm guessing the near $1000 cost of the exemplary 105MM Micro Nikkor might just be something you consider "expensive". If not, go with that - it is a great lens.

However, perhaps before buying anything, an understanding of your options in macro shooting gear might help. Dedicated macro lenses are not the only way to go - and while their image quality is generally quite excellent, you pay for that. If you do opt to get a true macro lens, at least you need to understand the differences between the various focal lengths - Nikon alone makes them in 40, 60, 85, 105 and 200MM lengths. The chief difference among these (besides the cost) is that the longer the focal length, the greater your "working distance" - the space between the lens and the subject. If For flowers and stamps, etc., the shorter lengths might suffice since you won't be afraid to get close. But for insects and the like, longer lengths might be better as you don't have to get as close to fill the frame with the small parts you're trying to shoot.

If you'd like to dip your toe into macro shooting, though, before spending a bunch - one possibility is to rent a lens from borrowlenses.com or a similar outfit. Another option would be to get a "close-up lens", which looks like a clear filter that screws onto the front of your current lens but is curved so that it enables much closer focusing (at the cost of disallowing infinity focus). These can be had for costs in the tens of dollars - for instance, the various close-up filters with a 62MM diameter seem to run from $27-$75.

Another option is an extension tube - this is a light-tight hollow tube that fits between your lens and the camera body to achieve closer focusing (again, at the expense of losing infinity focus when you use it) - but for a beginner this approach might be too cumbersome - I'd humbly suggest the close-up filter to start with.

I hope that makes some sense...

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron ALL make excellent true macro lenses. Here is an independent comparative article:
Third-Party Macro Lenses Compared
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-213504-1.html

If you have further questions, I invite you to post in the UHH section
True Macro-Photography Forum at http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

you can get a manual focus Micro-NIKKOR-P f3.5 55mm manual focus macro lens for about $50-$75 used on ebay that will work fine with your D3100. That's what I did. When I shoot macros I manually set the manual focus to the shortest distance then move the camera with the live view 6x magnifier on to get the right focus. The attached pic of my cable remote was taken with this lens and my Nikon D3100 with just a 40 watt desk lamp for illumination, at f11 (to get a decent depth of field) at 1/50 sec., handheld and iso -800. Outdoords in sunlight I'd probably set the iso to 100. The pic is an unprocessed jpg., right out of the camera. Click on the download button to see the pic full size. The number 5 button on the remote will fill the whole screen.

(Download)

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I concur.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

The Nikkor 55-mm "macro" lens attains only 1:2 magnification (1/2 life-size) by itself. A Nikon 27.5-mm M2 tube is required to obtain 1:1 magnification. This was the only macro lens available 50-years ago. I purchased mine in 1972.

Nikkor 55-mm macro + 27.5-mm M2 tube

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

P.S. to the Original Poster:
I recommend following macro advice ONLY from UHH members who actually post macro-photography, either on UHH or their own websites. My links are lower left this post.

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

Still have mine on my Nikon FTN and use it frequently and then develop the film and make prints of a select few photos.