best macro lense for nikon d5200: Hi, I am new to UH and have been enjoying reading all the posts. I am an amateur photographer with a Nikon D5200 camera and a Tamron 16-300mm lens.

mel13

Hi, I am new to UH and have been enjoying reading all the posts. I am an amateur photographer with a Nikon D5200 camera and a Tamron 16-300mm lens. This seems to be working well for me for family and vacation photos but I would like to purchase a macro lens. I have read many good reviews for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, but I have also been advised to get a Nikon lens. Price range under $1000. I would appreciate any advice on this matter.
Thanks!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Either will be fine for IQ. If you are referring to the Nikkor 105 VRG, then it is more ruggedly built compared to the Tamron. Should you decide to resell at some point, it will also hold its value more. I would also look at the Sigma 105. All can be had for less than $1000. Don't ignore used from Adorama, B&H, or KEH and you can save some $s. Check out the UHH Macro forum.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I have read that the Toking 100mm macro is highly rated for image quality. I am considering that one myself.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

mel13 wrote:

Hi, I am new to UH and have been enjoying reading all the posts. I am an amateur photographer with a Nikon D5200 camera and a Tamron 16-300mm lens. This seems to be working well for me for family and vacation photos but I would like to purchase a macro lens. I have read many good reviews for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, but I have also been advised to get a Nikon lens. Price range under $1000. I would appreciate any advice on this matter.
Thanks!

The Tamron 90mm f2.8 is a very good lens. A friend has one, and I borrowed it for one day, some time ago to shoot a few portraits. It is a twofold lens, meaning it is a macro/portrait lens, with a 1:1 magnification for macro. You won't break the bank with this lens. And it comes with a 6 year warranty.

CO

Also check out the Nikon 85mm f/3.5 DX VR micro lens. Nikon calls their macro lenses, micro lenses. It's a little lighter and a little more compact than full frame lenses. It would not be as front heavy on the the DX camera.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

There are several Tokinas at Adorama for around $400. Used. I have only used a Tamron and Nikkor, but Nikkors, Sigmas, Tokinas, and Tamron will perform up to the capabilities of the user. I have a few using the Nikkor on my Flickr page. Good luck

entobob53 Loc: St. Peters, Missouri

There are MANY really good macro lenses out there. I wanted to shoot insects so a major consideration for me was how close do I need to get to achieve a 1 to 1 macro ratio. I chose the sigma 150 so I don't have to get so close I spook the subject.

mel13

Thanks everyone!

excaliburgc Loc: Daytona Beach Florida

If you are only trying out macro, why not first try it using your current lenses with some extention tubes.then decide if you want to continue..you can get some pretty good shots very cheaply.

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

mel13 wrote:

Hi, I am new to UH and have been enjoying reading all the posts. I am an amateur photographer with a Nikon D5200 camera and a Tamron 16-300mm lens. This seems to be working well for me for family and vacation photos but I would like to purchase a macro lens. I have read many good reviews for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, but I have also been advised to get a Nikon lens. Price range under $1000. I would appreciate any advice on this matter.
Thanks!

YOU WILL NOT GET A BETTER, SHARPER, CHEAPER MACRO LENS ANYWHERE. I have owned it for years and it is one of the best in my stable.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-Micro-60mm-F2-8-D-Mint-shipping-from-Japan-3190192-/263268156997?hash=item3d4c014645:g:vVAAAOSwU1FZ5ssw

ecurb1105

mel13 wrote:

Hi, I am new to UH and have been enjoying reading all the posts. I am an amateur photographer with a Nikon D5200 camera and a Tamron 16-300mm lens. This seems to be working well for me for family and vacation photos but I would like to purchase a macro lens. I have read many good reviews for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, but I have also been advised to get a Nikon lens. Price range under $1000. I would appreciate any advice on this matter.
Thanks!

Depends on what you're using the lens for. The longer the lens the more distance to your subject. So for a copy stand you'd want a shorter lens.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

I echo the suggestion on the 100mm Tokina. Take care & ...

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

mel13 wrote:

Hi, I am new to UH and have been enjoying reading all the posts. I am an amateur photographer with a Nikon D5200 camera and a Tamron 16-300mm lens. This seems to be working well for me for family and vacation photos but I would like to purchase a macro lens. I have read many good reviews for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, but I have also been advised to get a Nikon lens. Price range under $1000. I would appreciate any advice on this matter.
Thanks!

I hate to tell you this but "lense" is not in the American English or the Cambridge dictionaries.

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

BobHartung wrote:

I hate to tell you this but "lense" is not in the American English or the Cambridge dictionaries.

And the spelling Nazis strike again. They are so insecure they thrive on finding others typo mistakes and relish in blasting them at every turn. We who have to left thumbs while typing salute you.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

billnikon wrote:

And the spelling Nazis strike again. They are so insecure they thrive on finding others typo mistakes and relish in blasting them at every turn. We who have to left thumbs while typing salute you.

yes but this is not just a spelling mistake. I am seeing this again and again, not just here but all over the web. It is another step down in the race to illiteracy. If you don't take time to spell correctly, why should I even begin to think that you have thought through whatever else you have to say? That is a rhetorical question by the way.