Help with macro lens(s) (Page 2): Didn't make sense as to why your link didn't work, but think I got it. When posting links...leave a space after .html, then a period. Otherwise the...

busted_shutter

amehta wrote:

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.

Didn't make sense as to why your link didn't work, but think I got it. When posting links...leave a space after .html, then a period. Otherwise the link gets "confused". http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-178726-1.html .

amehta Loc: Boston

busted_shutter wrote:

Didn't make sense as to why your link didn't work, but think I got it. When posting links...leave a space after .html, then a period. Otherwise the link gets "confused". http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-178726-1.html .

Thanks.

bettis1 Loc: Texas

I just recently went through the same deliberations when looking for a Macro for my D3100. After much study I chose the Nikkor 85mm Micro. It hasn't been off my camera since I got it. I know that it is a little over your $$ desires but I would encourage you to save a little longer than to compromise with a lesser or shorter lens.

All of the comments to go with a little longer lens than those that you are looking are valid. The extra distance gained will make a difference in many ways such as extra space between you and the target and in your lighting options.

If you are new to Macro photography it will open up a completely new world for you. There is never any shortage of fascinating subjects.

Bob

Mick 53 Loc: Minneapolis

I have the Tamron 90mm macro. Great sharp lens. Comes with a 6 year warranty under $600

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

amehta wrote:

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.

And in true macro work you will probably get better results with manual focus anyway. The depth of field in macro photography can gets extremely shallow and you will want to manually focus to get what you want in focus, not what the camera may decide to focus upon!

mikeg492 Loc: WIlmington, NC

kurtb wrote:

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!

Google Michael moats he uses tamron exclusively and the reason I bought mine.

SoftLights Loc: New Orleans, LA

I had the same decision to make several years ago and chose the Nikkor 60mm. I sold it and bought a used Nikkor 105mm f/4 manual for around $150. As many on here have indicated, it gives a much better working range and the price is right. With the money you'd save you could buy one of the inexpensive ring lights that work great for these short distances and have money left over. The link below is to an ebay listing. Good luck.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.XMicro+NIKKOR+105+f%2F4&_nkw=Micro+NIKKOR+105+f%2F4&_sacat=0&_from=R40

rs2543 Loc: Ohio

I have a Nikkor 105 and a 200 micro lens they are both manual focus. They are great. I would not want auto focus when doing macro photography. Your depth of field is so shallow you need to determine what is sharp not the camera. I would not go less than 80mm. I always use a tripod because my exposures are long therefore I can not hand hold. I would not want a ring light ever. They will make everything flat. If you could pick up a Nikkor 105mm f/4 for $150 like Softlights did that would be a still. I have the same lens and it is a great lens. RS2543

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

rs2543 wrote:

I would not want a ring light ever. They will make everything flat. If you could pick up a Nikkor 105mm f/4 for $150 like Softlights did that would be a still.

I use a ring light on most all of my miniature and macro photography, but I also use two side spots for depth and turn the ring light power down to highlight the front of my subject without making the picture go flat.

The Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8D lenses are running $350-$400 on Ebay, a bit more expensive but newer, sharper and have one more F stop.

rs2543 Loc: Ohio

If your using two side spots that would give you depth. The Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 would be a great lens. They don't get any better than that. What a steal. Do you ever go to the weekend of photography SWMCCC at Hope College in the summer? RS2543

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Ditto the Tamron 90. Check out the reviews.

BillMunder Loc: New Hyde Park. NY

kurtb wrote:

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!

Hello. What kind of macro work are you trying to do? I mostly do flowers. What I found is the longer the lens the easier it is to get separation of the subject and background. I use a Canon 60d (crop sensor), 100mm Canon macro lens and a Tamron 180 mm. I use my 50mm with an extension tube. I will also use extension tubes on other lenses when I'm trying to pack light. Canon makes a close up lens filter (500d). I have and use this filter, I have found it is a light weight alternative to carrying an extra lens. This filter is expensive but delivers good picture quality. I learned about the 500d filter from Bryan Peterson (a Nikon shooter). I will also add that when I took a flower photo work shop with Allan Rokach, he strongly recommended a macro lens in the 100 mm range.
I hope this is a help.
Bill

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Buy USED! Macro lenses are for specific work and usually stay in most people's bags. Find one on ebay. On that note, I have the Nikon 105 with autofocus. It is incredibly sharp if not the sharpest Nikon lens. And it's DOF is to f/57. Can be used as a general lens for portraits.

You will love macro photo. It is another world of magical color.

BTW - another reason to buy full-frame camera is the ability to add a TC. DX cameras do not allow for a TC. You can put a TC such as a 1.4 on a 105 to get closer to skiddis subjects without getting close.

houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA

sirlensalot wrote:

Ditto the Tamron 90.

Love that Tamron Macro. I am saving up my pennies to buy a new Nikon D610, Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di MACRO 1:1 VC USD and maybe a used Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 mm F/2.8 D. I hope to have them in a few months. I've done lots of research, the D610/Tamron SP 24-70 is right up there with a D810/Nikkor 24-70 or a 5D3/Canon 24-70 but a lot less money.

rs2543 wrote:

Do you ever go to the weekend of photography SWMCCC at Hope College in the summer?

That's a new one to me. I'm in a very rural area, did a few Google searches and couldn't find any photography clubs closer than 80 miles away. I found the SWMCCC info on line, it's something I will look into quite seriously.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Several things I think you might consider
1 - close focus distance - how close t=do you want to get to the object? Yes, extension tubes are available - but in the field they may not be convenient
2 - how far away from the object to you usually expect to be? The longer lens is better for living things
3 - what angle of view do you want?

I have Nikon's 60mm and 105mm macro lenses. I'll use the 60 when I want a wider angle of view than the 105 will give. Or, the 105 when the object is a bit further than the 60 will pull in. I also use the 105 when I want to get up close without the wide angle of view that the 60 provides (I know - I could crop but Id rather compose with the camera)