Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Macro
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Nov 18, 2018 13:16:47   #
kcj
 
What. Is best. Macro for Nikon 610 ? Also do they ever go on sale? Already have a Nikon 105 but it is not a macro

| Reply
Nov 18, 2018 15:12:19   #
rwilson1942 (a regular here)
 
It would be hard to find a bad modern macro lens, IMO.
The most popular macros are in the 90-105mm range, pretty much all f2.8.
Tamron and Tokina make inexpensive ($300-$350) macro lenses for Nikon.
On the higher end are the Sigma ($500-$550) and the Nikon ($800-$900).
I don't see them on sale but you can usually find them used at pretty good prices.
Look in the 'true macro' section to see what folks are shooting with.

| Reply
Nov 18, 2018 17:49:37   #
joer (a regular here)
 
kcj wrote:
What. Is best. Macro for Nikon 610 ? Also do they ever go on sale? Already have a Nikon 105 but it is not a macro


Why not put an extension tube set on your 105. It doesn't cost much provides macro albeit less conveniently and treats you wallet and camera bag kindly.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 05:45:50   #
entobob53
 
Since I shoot insects, I like the extra separation the Sigma 150 provides

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 07:42:26   #
f8lee
 
kcj wrote:
What. Is best. Macro for Nikon 610 ? Also do they ever go on sale? Already have a Nikon 105 but it is not a macro


As you ponder the selection available from Nikon and others, you should at least understand that the longer the focal length, the longer the "working distance". This is how far you can be from the subject and still get the 1:1 size ratio that macro lenses allow (as to why Nikon calls their lenses "Micro" I cannot say - it's just marketing).

My personal favorite, and the one I used for the majority of flower shots on my website (URL in my signature) is the 200MM Micro-Nikkor. The 105MM, which I also had, is smaller but forced me to get closer to the subject, meaning the flash rig I use would sometimes be blocked and cause unwanted shadows. Of course, a dedicated ring flash attached to the front of the lens would resolve that issue. I've also owned Sigma's 180MM Macro lens, and it was quite good - the point being you don't have to stick with the Nikon brand.

I mention flash because in the world of macro shooting, depth of field becomes paper thin. Even at f22 you might only get a couple of MM of focused area depth, so unless your subjects are stationary you will probably need to use some kind of augmented lighting.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 07:58:31   #
Screamin Scott (a regular here)
 
Several reasons. #1 no variable macro magnification. #2 loss of infinity focus. #3 unless the lens it is added to is a "flat field" design, you lose corner to corner sharpness. Bear in mind that the longer focal lengths do give you longer working distances but the tradeoff is bigger, heavier & more expensive optics. I shoot insects with a 105 and have no issues at all getting close as my Flickr images will attest..
joer wrote:
Why not put an extension tube set on your 105. It doesn't cost much provides macro albeit less conveniently and treats you wallet and camera bag kindly.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 08:03:23   #
waynetgreen
 
I recently upgraded from a full manual Nikon 105 f2.5 with extension tube to a used AF Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8D. Amazon $255. Condition, very good. Arrived in a week, looks brand new to me.
Test results from my D750 revealed excellent results. Tack sharp. Focusing motor a little slow, but once in the macro range the motor responds nicely. Latest 105 micro is $899. Most likely no noticable difference in optics. Just a thought.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 09:03:10   #
camerapapi (a regular here)
 
I have always selected Nikon lenses for my Nikon bodies and I would recommend that you do so. Nikon has many macro lenses and it all depends on the working distance that you require but if you ask me I am going to say that the 105mm focal length seems to be the most popular and a very good focal length when it comes to working distance.
I am well aware that there are other brands that offer excellent macro lenses but I have always preferred Nikon lenses for my Nikon cameras. My reasoning has always been that those lenses are specifically made for use with Nikon bodies.
I have been using an old 105mm f4 from the early 80's and it has served me well. The lens is also usable as a portrait lens.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 09:29:28   #
NCMtnMan
 
I understand that you already have a 105, but the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8 is currently on sale and is rated as one of the best lenses available. Otherwise, I would suggest that you look the Nikkor 200mm or the Sigma line of macros.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 09:35:46   #
fetzler (a regular here)
 
AF-S Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8 is a good place to start.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 10:14:32   #
tcthome (a regular here)
 
f8lee wrote:
As you ponder the selection available from Nikon and others, you should at least understand that the longer the focal length, the longer the "working distance". This is how far you can be from the subject and still get the 1:1 size ratio that macro lenses allow (as to why Nikon calls their lenses "Micro" I cannot say - it's just marketing).

My personal favorite, and the one I used for the majority of flower shots on my website (URL in my signature) is the 200MM Micro-Nikkor. The 105MM, which I also had, is smaller but forced me to get closer to the subject, meaning the flash rig I use would sometimes be blocked and cause unwanted shadows. Of course, a dedicated ring flash attached to the front of the lens would resolve that issue. I've also owned Sigma's 180MM Macro lens, and it was quite good - the point being you don't have to stick with the Nikon brand.

I mention flash because in the world of macro shooting, depth of field becomes paper thin. Even at f22 you might only get a couple of MM of focused area depth, so unless your subjects are stationary you will probably need to use some kind of augmented lighting.
As you ponder the selection available from Nikon a... (show quote)


I purchased the 105 micro when I purchased my camera. It's a great lens. That said I would have purchased the 200mm if I had to do it again.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 10:19:06   #
Screamin Scott (a regular here)
 
I have 8 different true macro lenses from 55 to 180mm. Some are AF, others are MF. My favorite is a MF 105mm F2.8 from the mid 1980's. They span manufacturers from Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, and older 3rd party offerings. They all deliver as long as they are handled correctly...

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 10:49:42   #
Bridges
 
kcj wrote:
What. Is best. Macro for Nikon 610 ? Also do they ever go on sale? Already have a Nikon 105 but it is not a macro


Check out the Tokina 100mm 2.8 AF --Best Macro for the money (in my opinion as well as many others including a lot of professionals -- I've known three to use this lens for their studio portrait lens). I've used this lens for several years and it is excellent. Most people who are really into macro will tell you the best use of a macro lens is to use it in manual mode. The Tokina has a push/pull action to engage the auto focus. This is nice since you can autofocus, then pull the collar back to "tweak" the shot for even greater sharpness. Read reviews of this lens and you will see it rated excellent by all accounts.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 12:31:41   #
larryepage
 
kcj wrote:
What. Is best. Macro for Nikon 610 ? Also do they ever go on sale? Already have a Nikon 105 but it is not a macro


The Nikkor 105mm micro is sharp and fast and has VR. I've had mine for over 10 years, and it does a great job. The current model probably has some improvements over the one that I have. This is the Nikkor macro lens that meets the premium Gold Ring standards. It also serves well at greater distances as a great short telephoto lens, meaning that you could sell your existing 105 if you choose to do so. A number of years ago, I took it as my only lens to the San Antonio Botanical Garden and came back with a huge collection of great images taken at all distances.

The current 60mm macro also might be a good choice and is a little less expensive and noticeably smaller and lighter. You might be happy with it on your D610, since it is a smaller form factor body. I purchased one of these to do negative and transparency copying, but have not yet had opportunity to check it out in more general macro usage. As stated above, for equal framing of a subject, your working distance will be a lot shorter...a little over half the working distance of the 105mm lens. And I've not tested it to see how it will work at more "ordinary" working distances as an alternative normal lens. This is not a Gold Ring lens, so is not designed and built to quite the same standards as the 105mm...more plastic in the body, etc.

I'm sure you know to beware of the 40mm micro. You could use it, but it is designed as a DX lens and the image will not completely cover your full frame sensor. Working distances would be even shorter.

I have no experience with the longer Nikkor micros or with any of the third party lenses.

| Reply
Nov 19, 2018 12:48:44   #
zzzynick
 
I have a canon mount, Tamron G2 Tamron 90mm. It is a macro lens, I like it, and would buy it again. It works for portraits as well.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.