Macro Lens: I have a Nikon 7000 I am interested in purchasing a Macro lens. Any suggestions? Thanks John...

jodo4138 Loc: Long Island NY

I have a Nikon 7000 I am interested in purchasing a Macro lens. Any suggestions?

Thanks John

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

dojo4138 wrote:

I have a Nikon 7000 I am interested in purchasing a Macro lens. Any suggestions?

Thanks John

Nikon makes several macro lenses for your camera. Perhaps the 3 most popular are the 105mm F2.8G, the 60mm F2.8G, and the DX 85mm F3.5.
All 3 will give you full 1:1 reproduction and are quite sharp. The biggest difference is the minimum focusing distance required to give that 1:1 image.

Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all offer quite good macro lenses in the 90-105mm range that work well with your camera also.

Sheila Loc: Arizona or New York

The Nikon 105mm lens is an excellent lens but I have also read good things about Sigma, Tamron and Tokina in the same length lens. The 105 mm is a better choice than the 60mm in my opinion because it allows you to have more distance between you and the subject. This is helpful for subjects such as insects. I have both because I bought the 60 mm first but never use it for macro since buying the 105 mm. Your choice depends on your budget.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

MT and Sheila both offer good advice.
To be honest, I don't think you can make a bad decision in the 90-105mm macro range.
It seems to be a bit of a "sweet spot" for quality.
They are all very good lenses it seems.
I don't think I have ever read a bad report about any of them.
You might be interested in the updated Tamron 90mm because of its appearance on this list.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/27/five-lenses-bokeh-drool/

mariak Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico USA

lighthouse wrote:

MT and Sheila both offer good advice.
To be honest, I don't think you make make a bad decision in the 90-105mm macro range.
It seems to be a bit of a "sweet spot" for quality.
They are all very good lenses it seems.
I don't think I have ever read a bad report about any of them.
You might be interested in the updated Tamron 90mm because of its appearance on this list.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/27/five-lenses-bokeh-drool/

The Tamron 90mm 2.8 is a wonderful lens. I just got mine today for my Pentax K3 and was knocked out at the IQ, sharpness, and the soft dreamlike background. Wonderful lens.
mariak

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

MT Shooter wrote:

Nikon makes several macro lenses for your camera. Perhaps the 3 most popular are the 105mm F2.8G, the 60mm F2.8G, and the DX 85mm F3.5.
All 3 will give you full 1:1 reproduction and are quite sharp. The biggest difference is the minimum focusing distance required to give that 1:1 image.

Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all offer quite good macro lenses in the 90-105mm range that work well with your camera also.

I don't know what the price difference is between a Nikon and a Tokina, it is hard to find a bad macro lens in the hands of someone who learns how to properly use one... Having said that there is a Nikon shooter that posts in the Macro forum using a Tokina and his work is extremely impressive.

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Blurryeyed wrote:

I don't know what the price difference is between a Nikon and a Tokina, it is hard to find a bad macro lens in the hands of someone who learns how to properly use one... Having said that there is a Nikon shooter that posts in the Macro forum using a Tokina and his work is extremely impressive.

I have the Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 D and I find that it's a great lens. It is one of the most used lenses I have, as a macro and a general walk around lens.

Taken from the 27th floor, Louisiana state capitol. Tokina 100mm 2.8

Bob Boner

If Nikon still makes the 200mm macro, that was a great lens. The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 also has a good reputation (better than their 180mm, I think.). The narrower angle of view makes it easier to control backgrounds and the greater focusing distance makes it easier to photograph insects without scaring them.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Bob Boner wrote:

If Nikon still makes the 200mm macro, that was a great lens. The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 also has a good reputation (better than their 180mm, I think.). The narrower angle of view makes it easier to control backgrounds and the greater focusing distance makes it easier to photograph insects without scaring them.

Long macro lenses are very difficult to use in the field, no one should make a 200mm macro their first or their only macro lens. The background is more pleasing but you will keep far fewer images because the motion blur becomes a big problem, I shoot a lot of macro, have owned several different lenses including the Sigma 180 which did not get used nearly as much as my 100mm lens because of the problem that I outlined above, it was a wonderful lens, absolutely excellent, but difficult to use...

If you need to see my macro creds just click on my flickr link below.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I like the Nikon 105G a lot. It is also a very good portrait lens.

Bob Boner

I have owned the Nikon 200mm, 105mm, and older 55mm. Ihave also owned a 90mm Vivitar, and currently have the Canon 180 macro and the 100mm f/2.8. My two favorite have been the 200mm and the 180mm. When I used Nikon, the 200mm was the second macro I had (after the 55mm). With the Canon, the 180mm was the first lens I bought for the camera. I don't find them any harder to use in the field than the shorter ones, and I find the working distance and narrow angle of view of the longer lenses real bonuses. I use them handheld with flash, and on a tripod if I'm not using flash. Probably 20-25% of my images are macro. Different strokes for different folks

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Bob Boner wrote:

I have owned the Nikon 200mm, 105mm, and older 55mm. Ihave also owned a 90mm Vivitar, and currently have the Canon 180 macro and the 100mm f/2.8. My two favorite have been the 200mm and the 180mm. I don't find them any harder to use in the field than the shorter ones, and I find the working distance and narrow angle of view of the longer lenses real bonuses. I use them handheld with flash, and on a tripod if I'm not using flash. Probably 20-25% of my images are macro.

I guess to each his own, but I would never recommend a 200mm lens as a first macro, never.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

If you would like a Nikon macro with a bit more reach look for an AF Micro Nikkor 200mm 1:4D.

It is a very good lens sadly only available second hand now. The main advantage over the other lenses is you can get a bit further back from your subject. The disadvantage is in comparison to modern lenses it is clunky and noisy. However on IQ it is the match of any other Nikon macro.

RetiredPhotog Loc: South West Ohio

mariak wrote:

The Tamron 90mm 2.8 is a wonderful lens. I just got mine today for my Pentax K3 and was knocked out at the IQ, sharpness, and the soft dreamlike background. Wonderful lens.
mariak

This one works great for me. :thumbup:

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

I have both the Nikon 60mm and 105mm macro lenses. I use them both - as a general rule: the 105 when I want the reach, the 60 when I want either, or both of a wider angle of view or to get closer to the object.