good nikon macro lens?

pinco000

pinco000

Suspended / Banned
Messages
94
Edit My Images
No
hi guys, I went to the London Zoo yesterday to enjoy my nikkor 70-200 vr2 with d7k. Took about 300 pics :P
they were the only lenses i took unfortunately. Many times I needed to get close and I couldnt. Missed my 17-55 at times.
What I really miss generally though is a micro lens. When it came to butterflies and insects I was really upset, *** had no chance to get them.
So... I'm going to buy one
Any advice which lens to get? Heard mixed reviews of the new 105mm from nikon. Appearantly the lens breathe badly. HELP PLS

thanks for the answers and reading ;)
 
Looks from your sig that the lenses you have cover most.. :)


Choices:
105mm nikkor micro (d) - the one I have see sig links - plus basic tubes or kenko tubes
90mm tamron
105mm sigma
150mm sigma << ?
180mm sigma

You will be looking for 1:1 ratio for best results. There is a 60mm nikon but you may be too close to the subject...

Possibly the the 150 above, but it would be best to either find someone who has one (to borrow) or hire one...

Hope that helps :thumbs:
 
I shoot with an aging 60mm f2.8 Nikkor AF-D. It was a reconditioned one off ebay so only about £130 and has done me proud. You do end up very close but that hasn't been a great problem, here's a butterfly shot with it at the closest focusing distance IIRC:

BD9CCR.jpg


However, there's times when a macro zoom is probably a better bet, like at a zoo. But, who am I kidding, the 60mm is turning out to be my favourite lens as I use it for all my table top work too!

Andy
 
Another vote for the 60mm af-d... Brilliant lens, if a but old fashioned but has brilliant optics
 
What's your budget? Any of the Nikon macro lenses are outstanding; but if I had to pick the best two they'd be the 45 PC-E and the 85 PC-E, couple them with extension tubes and they're the best of the best in terms of sharpness and versatility.
 
Fellow TP member reviewed the Sigma 150mm f2.8 linky ---> Sigma 150mm macro review I've had 3 yep 3 of them over a few years an would recommend them - am looking at getting a 4th :$ :lol:
 
thanks for the answers guys. Quite a few of you reckon to go with sigma, but I prefer Nikon. Its not that the Sigma lenses are worse, its just personal preference.
Budgetwise, there is no limit really if I find what Im lookin' for. Obviously the lens will have very limited usage for me, so wont spend anywhere near the sum, that I' ve spent on my 70-200 vr2.
I went trough quite a few reviews today of the Nikkor 105 micro G...and I reckon the best will b to go to the shop and try them if I will happy.
That day will b tomorrow probably :)
For now, thank you all for ** replies :)
 
I would highly recommend the Nikkor 105mm Micro Macro, an excellent macro and also portrait lens.
 
ecniv said:
What have you been doing to them?? ;)
Click to expand...

:thinking: In short to invest in other glass really & prob because I wished I hadn't soon after :$
 
redhed17 said:
What does the 'lens breathe badly' mean? :shrug:
Click to expand...

It means that the focal length changes when you change the focus distance. The quoted focal length only applies when the lens is focussed at infinity, and it can change a lot - usually downwards - when you focus close. The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is notoriously bad for this.

For movies it's very important because you don't want the scene to zoom when you pull the focus. Movie lenses are designed not to breathe and that's one reason they cost £££££. For still photography it's not such a big deal. And for macro it's even less important because you get 1:1 reproduction at minimum focus distance regardless of what the lens does internally to achieve that - *UNLESS* you want to do focus stacking, in which case breathing is bad.
 
StewartR said:
It means that the focal length changes when you change the focus distance. The quoted focal length only applies when the lens is focussed at infinity, and it can change a lot - usually downwards - when you focus close. The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is notoriously bad for this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Stewart. :)

I've learned something today. :D
 
pinco000 said:
thanks for the answers guys. Quite a few of you reckon to go with sigma, but I prefer Nikon. Its not that the Sigma lenses are worse, its just personal preference.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Sigma fan, I've owned a few of their lenses over the years and never been hugely impressed, the only one I kept though was the 105 f/2.8 as it's the only one I feel holds it's own against Nikon's own....
 
Ozei said:
In some cases a heck of a lot of ££££s :eek: - e.g. http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/arri_k2.47613.0
Click to expand...

Ozei said:
PS. Even the Zeiss Ultra Primes are cheap though compared to some of Canon's really big TV zooms. This 100x DigiSuper (200x with the range extender in) is probably £60k plus vat, or more - http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/digi100xs.html.
Click to expand...

But that's not necessarily a fair comparison. Those lenses are an 8mm f/2.8 non-fisheye and a 100x zoom: pretty exotic stuff which would be hugely expensive even in the DSLR world.

On the other hand this *is* a fair comparison. The Canon EF 135mm f/2 L is a great lens by the standards we usually use, and it costs about £900. The Zeiss UltraPrime 135mm T/1.9 has a superficially similar spec, but it costs over £15,000.
 
StewartR said:
And for macro it's even less important because you get 1:1 reproduction at minimum focus distance regardless of what the lens does internally to achieve that - *UNLESS* you want to do focus stacking, in which case breathing is bad.
Click to expand...

Still not an issue, because when you focus stack you should leave the lens on a set magnification and move the camera to change the focal point. Focus rails are made specifically for this purpose.
 
jomike said:
Still not an issue, because when you focus stack you should leave the lens on a set magnification and move the camera to change the focal point. Focus rails are made specifically for this purpose.
Click to expand...
Good point. You can tell I'm not a macro expert.

So why does the OP care about the Nikon 105mm macro breathing?
 
StewartR said:
Good point. You can tell I'm not a macro expert.

So why does the OP care about the Nikon 105mm macro breathing?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, all macro lenses capable of 1:1 focus breathe as you approach MFD. The effective aperture changes as well, stopping down. My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 becomes a 60mm f/5.6 at 1:1.
These are design compromises to allow the lens to focus from infinity down to 1:1, and you just have to live with them.
 
jomike said:
AFAIK, all macro lenses capable of 1:1 focus breathe as you approach MFD. The effective aperture changes as well, stopping down. My Tamron 90mm f/2.8 becomes a 60mm f/5.6 at 1:1.
These are design compromises to allow the lens to focus from infinity down to 1:1, and you just have to live with them.
Click to expand...

It can be seen as a bonus when using extension tubes - 60mm of extension will give you 2:1 where as if your lens stayed a constant 90mm you'd need 90mm of extension to get 2:1 :D
 
StewartR said:
But that's not necessarily a fair comparison. Those lenses are an 8mm f/2.8 non-fisheye and a 100x zoom: pretty exotic stuff which would be hugely expensive even in the DSLR world.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know these two aren't a realistic comparison - I was just illustrating how crazy movie/tv lens prices can get. The new Leica Summilux-C cine primes are probably a reasonable comparison - they're around £110,000 for a set of eight (covering 16-100mm) so the average per lens is between £13k and £14k.

Btw, that £60k price for the 100x Canon DigiSuper is probably an underestimate - I once borrowed a 50x Canon (much earlier model) and even that had to be insured for £46k.
 
I have the Nikon 105mm and can't praise it enough. It really is a great lens. The focal length means you have a good working distance at minimum focus so as not to scare off insects. Of course the downside is a lesser improvement in magnification when used with extension tubes - but doing this often means your subject is almost touching the glass. The VR function often comes in handy, though it sadly does nothing to steady a plant blowing out of frame even in a small breeze or a speedy bug. The lens also makes a nice portrait lens and gives good results at f/2.8.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I have the Nikon 105mm and can't praise it enough. It really is a great lens. The focal length means you have a good working distance at minimum focus so as not to scare off insects. Of course the downside is a lesser improvement in magnification when used with extension tubes - but doing this often means your subject is almost touching the glass. The VR function often comes in handy, though it sadly does nothing to steady a plant blowing out of frame even in a small breeze or a speedy bug. The lens also makes a nice portrait lens and gives good results at f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Are there any nikon lens with greater magnification then 1:1?
 
For occassional macro use, you can turn ANY lens into a closer focussingoptic by sticking an extension tube on it...I have done this with a 300 f2.8 and focussed on things at 6 feet, with "almost" macro type enlargement.

You could fit an extension to any of your lenses THAT DO NOT HAVE AN EXPOSED REAR ELEMENT. Then they will provide greater magnification than they are designed for and it will only cost you about £50...more versatilty, less weight to lug, but no so many bragging rights.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I'm not a Sigma fan, I've owned a few of their lenses over the years and never been hugely impressed, the only one I kept though was the 105 f/2.8 as it's the only one I feel holds it's own against Nikon's own....
Click to expand...

Fair comment I suppose, there does seem to be copy variation of Sigma lenses.

I have the Sigma 70mm EX DG macro. Apart from being hugely impressed by its IQ and build quality, nothing (including Nikon) matches its IQ from wide open in the sharpness graphs at SLRgear.com
 
When i was buying my macro lens I rapidly came to realise that there don't seem to be any bad macro lenses. It seems to be a choice of picking your focal length and making your choice. Everything mentioned on this thread gets rave reviews.

I initially had a 50mm Sigma 2.8. That was super sharp but wouldn't af on my body. I ended up selling it on and buying a Sigma 180mm 3.5. That's a really handy focal length for insects etc (and it also double as a fast telephoto) but it's a big beast. Far too big to carry around with the rest of my kit. I sometimes wish I'd kept the 50mm as well. Or maybe the 150mm Siggy would have been a little more portable. That one seems to get very good reviews.
 
pinco000 said:
Any advice which lens to get? Heard mixed reviews of the new 105mm from nikon. Appearantly the lens breathe badly. HELP PLS
Click to expand...

Take it from somebody who has this lens attached to his camera 50% of the time - the lens breathing is a complete non issue in whatever use you put this lens to.

The only reviewer I've seen that's really complained about the breathing is Ken Rockwell :lol:. Everybody else is praising the optical qualities instead. Trust me this lens is a stunner.
 
You can get to 2:1 at the same MFD on the 105mm by adding a TC-20EIII to it.
 
ausemmao said:
You can get to 2:1 at the same MFD on the 105mm by adding a TC-20EIII to it.
Click to expand...

Thanks...going to check how much they cost ;)
PS: Am I right when saying the TC doubles the apperture? So the F2.8 will become F5.6 and I will loose IQ?
 
Slaphead said:
Take it from somebody who has this lens attached to his camera 50% of the time - the lens breathing is a complete non issue in whatever use you put this lens to.

The only reviewer I've seen that's really complained about the breathing is Ken Rockwell :lol:. Everybody else is praising the optical qualities instead. Trust me this lens is a stunner.
Click to expand...

Surely not such a stunner as my 70-200 VR2 ;)
when I tried this lens in the shop for the first time(took only one shot from inside a jacobs store into far away on the street, of a man walking), I was so amazed with the IQ, that all I have managed to say was: " pls put those lens quickly back into the box and I pay for them". They are my favourite lens, however my 17-55f2.8 is very sharp too.
But anyway, I miss all the oportunity to shoot insects, flowers etc ;(
 
If you are only going to take macro photos occasionally you could try a good close up filter. I use a canon 500d close up filter with both a 70-200 vr1 and a 300 afs and have been satisfied with the result as use this set up in preference to a 60mm macro. I prefer it with the zoom as it allows more flexibility to control framing and IQ has proven to be excellent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top