kcj Loc: Seneca SC

Want a macro lens for full frame Nikon I have a Nikon 105 but it is not macro trying to decide between Tamron 90 mm macro and sigma 105 macro which is better or do you think there is a better macro out there

Kuzano

Nikon uses the word Micro for their Macro lenses. Does the name include Micro appear on the lens specs? My best macro lens was an older 90mm Tamron.

kcj Loc: Seneca SC

No it is just A Older Nikon 105

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

The best plan might be to try macro first with what you have (extension tubes, close-up lenses), and when you see what you will need in terms of focal length, get anything marked macro in that size. Your Nikon 105mm might be fine with tubes.

Shorter lengths may be better for some things, like small insects or stamps photographed on a stand, while longer ones may be better for butterflies, flowers, etc. Most people like to be able to get back (longer lens), but the shorter lens may be more economical. I used a 75mm Nikon enlarging lens on a Canon 35mm film camera (with bellows) for macro for years, and this was economical compared to most macro lenses. Of course, nowadays people want auto focus too, so that is out.

To be honest, most of my macro today would be selling something on eBay, where the finest photography is not required (but it helps in some cases). I have one prime macro lens that is also a portrait lens (Canon), 60mm for my Canon digital 650D (APS-C cropped sensor). If I want something like fine art in macro, I would consider a bigger camera. My signature picture here (the Rex Begonia) used an 8x10 camera with a big process lens (made for close-ups, like enlarger lenses--also rather economical even for the best), but the Canon attached on the back instead of a film back. That permits auto exposure, but manual focus.

The Kodak workshop manual, "Photomacrography," is still available online, and it makes a good textbook for pros and serious amateurs, even though the equipment technology is retro. The cover of that book used a tiny Kodak 16mm camera lens, the 25mm cine Ektar, mounted backwards on an 8x10 camera--using 8x10 film. These cine lenses are still sought after for macro--and micro (over 3 times lifesize on the sensor). I have tried that on the Canon (adapters made by S. K. Grimes) with better results than my Canon macro--and the Canon is not a cheap kit lens. But with that sort of setup, you must stage it with a tripod--it is not action photography like catching bees in the wild. In still life macro it is possible to test the shot with digital, then use larger film with exact settings.

So see what you need by exploring what you shoot, and how. If you really get into macro, you will probably want (later) to expand your options. For many people, extension tubes and/or close-up auxiliary lenses do what they need.

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi kcj,

I have the Tamron 90mm and a Tokina 100. Both lenses are sharp but the Tokina seems to be faster focusing than does the Tamron. Also, the Tamron is noisier when focusing than is the Tokina. Take care & ...

gwilliams6

I have the new Sigma Art 70mm f2.8 macro lens and love it. It comes in various camera mounts. Here are a couple of my first shots made with it and my Sony cameras. These are slightly cropped jpegs, straight out of the camera, with NO post processing, and NO noise reduction. Shots made handheld, in natural light. My review and photos are included for this lens at B&H, Amazon and Sigma websites. INCREDIBLE IMAGE QUALITY AT GREAT PRICE $569 US

"Amazing, stunning image quality

By gerald w.
I am a pro of over 40 years in the business. I have used excellent macro lenses from Nikon, Canon and Sony. I got this lens just a few days ago and have been test shooting it with both my Sony A7RIII and A7III and am blown away by its sharpness and overall image quality. It is solidly built, yet lightweight. Easy to focus in autofocus or manual focus. Focus limiting settings on this lens make quick work of rapid micro autofocusing of moving small subjects . Just a complete pleasure to use. The images are stunning. It is all I could have hoped for at an incredible price. True ART lens IQ. Highly recommend this in whatever your camera mount is. Cheers "

(Download)


(Download)

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

Check the review on the Tokina. It's a great lens at a very reasonable price.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

If you have a full-frame Nikon, you can use older manual focus macro lenses as well and still get metering. Macro shooting is normally done using manual focus anyway and you can save a lot of money by going with older manual focus lenses. AF & VR become just about unusable as you get past 1/2 lifesize as it is, thus unless you plan on using a macro for other shooting, those features are not important. I use an older manual focus 105mm F2.8 macro lens from the mid-1980's. I have a large stable of lenses (including 8 true macro lenses) and I have other lenses for those other situations. What focal length to use is going to be dependant on what you want to shoot. Shorter focal lengths ($0-70 mm) will mean that you will be right on top of your subjects at life-size, scaring away many insects & making for difficult lighting. Long focal lengths (150-200 mm) will give you a lot more room but at the expense of bigger, bulkier, more expensive lenses with less depth of field (pitifully short as it is with macro). The best compromise is in the 90-105mm range. I linking to a shot I took yesterday with my 105 MF macro. The Bee is about 4 mm long, so that gives you an idea as to magnification. I did shoot this with a crop sensor camera, not my full frame & I did crop it further in post...Most of the macro shots on my Flickr link are with that same lens...btw, there is a "True Macro" section of the where macro questions are better poised.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-548369-1.html#9308654re

gwilliams6

Screamin Scot, FYI, the above shots I made with my Sigma Art 70mm f2.8 macro were made with autofocus. It was fast and accurate with both moving subjects at 1:1 ,no problem. As I said above in my review of this lens ; "Focus limiting settings on this lens make quick work of rapid micro autofocusing of moving small subjects" . Cheers

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The fly is a nice shot and likely is life size. It would be nice to be double downloadable so as to see the eye facets and it appears that you nailed the focus on the eyes. The Dragonfly shot isn’t anywhere near life size though as to be so, very little of the body would be seen. How much cropping did you do in post on these?

gwilliams6

Cropping to include only the important details for posting these shots online. NO other post processing at all. The fly shot is actually cropped up to more than 1:1, it was a very tiny fly shot at 1:1 which is the max magnification on this lens. The dragon fly shot was shot at less than 1:1 to keep the wings in and then cropped to fill the frame for online posting, including the wings. Both were shot with autofocus, this lens and camera combos,(A7RIII fly) and (A7III dragonfly) doing a great job to acquire, track and keep these moving subjects in focus as I shot handheld in natural light at 1/1000 sec shutter speed. Cheers

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Almost all of my shots are handheld except when I stack (which is seldom). By the time you get a tripod set up, most mobile subjects have moved on.

gwilliams6

I totally agree.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I am curious what today is marketed as an "art lens." Schneider makes an XXL Fine Art Lens in two versions--550mm, and 1100mm--for large format cameras. Both cover sheet film negatives up to 20x24 inches for contact printing gallery sized pictures. The smaller one is over $8,000, and the aperture goes from f22 to f128. I looked at the diagrams of it when it came out, and it looks suspiciously like a Goerz Dagor. Dagor was certainly a favorite for generations, and not cheap--but not that expensive, either. If you buy the Schneider, they make it for you by hand and engrave your name on the brass barrel.

I would think an art lens would not be scientifically sharp--perhaps even impressionistic--but your macro pictures dash that idea. Do they give a clue what makes the lens artistic as opposed to just being an awfully sharp lens? (At least the soft focus lenses, often used for art, tell us what they do, how they do it, and why that makes them artistic...)

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

All 3 of these shots were taken wit the G2 90mm Lens. I suggest you use the download. I am keeping this lens in my bag.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)