Macro Lens Advice - About specific lenses

staffitaxi

staffitaxi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,702
Name
Andrea
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All

After taking part in a macro night at Camera Club a few weeks ago I rather enjoyed it and am looking to add a macro lens to my kit.

I'm very confused after different opinions on different lenses which to go for, I have a Nikon D90 and a D40. I am unlickely to ever own a full frame camera as I really only take photos for pleasure and I'm fairly happy with the two camera's I already have.

Wilkinson Cameras suggested either

Nikon 85mm F3.5 - this wood AF with both cameras and I did like that it was nice and light. Ken Rockwell doesn't seem that impressed by it though.
Tamron 90mm F2.8

Tokina 100mm F2.8 - Someone sent me a review by Ken Rockwell and he raves about it.

Nikon 105mm F2.8- Ken Rockwell say this about it "The only gotcha is that the image size changes significantly as you focus in the macro range, which makes it tough to get precise framing. It's enough to drive me crazy trying to get tight macro composition. " but I don't know if its a problem or not as I don't have any experience of shooting macro.

If anyone has any of these and can give me their impressions of them and maybe some links to photographs to give me some sort of idea of what is possible once you get used to them I would really appreciate it.

Thanks in advance

Andrea
 
Firstly, KR does not shoot much macro, so I would ignore what he has to say on the subject. His comment on the Nikon 105mm applies to all 1:1 macro lenses, and you focus by moving the camera not by using the focus ring when shooting macro.

All the lenses you mention will do what you want, all 1:1 prime macro lenses are sharp. The two Nikons have internal focusing, the others extend the lens as you focus closer, cutting down on distance between end of lens and subject.

Also add the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 to your list.

I use a Tamron 90mm f2.8 with my D50 and D90. Pics here
 
Hi,

I have the older 105d nikkor micro lens... well worth it if you can get one. I've heard good things about the vr model too.

Also check a sigma 150mm if you are taking pics of skitish insects or need a bit more working distance.

Links to 105mm and 105mm plus tubes are in the signature.
 
Hi I have the Tokina 100mm 2.8 and have been very pleased with the results I have got so far.
 
I too have a question about 2 specific macro lenses. I'm looking to get a macro lens for my D5000 and I've narrowed it down to either the Tamron 90mm f2.8 or Nikkor 105mm f2.8 AF-S VR.

This review covers them both: http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm

They will both allow the D5000 to autofocus (which isn't useful for macro work but could be for secondary uses such as portrait). They both have pin-sharp optics according to the many reviews I've read.

What sways me to the Nikkor is the VR. I want to use the lens to take macro shots of flowers and bugs, and chances are I won't have a tripod or monopod with me when I do it. Does anyone have any real-world experience as to how useful VR is at macro-ish photography? Thom's review says it becomes progressively less useful as you get closer and closer to true macro, but what about not-quite-macro?

At the best prices I've seen the Nikkor is £400 more expensive than the Tamron, and that's a big price to pay for VR.

I'd welcome any thoughts.
 
Hi Steve

Thanks for posting that link will have a read in a min.

I was doing some research on prices yesterday and found the following

The Tamron Is £319.00 at Camera World and £348.99 at WEX.

The Nikon 105 F2.8 is coming up at £599.99 at Wilkinsons Cameras.

That's accroding to Camer Price Buster anyway.
 
staffitaxi: the Tamron can be bought here for about £260: http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=660

I've bitten the bullet and gone for the Nikkor. It's super-fast at focussing at non-macro distances. I thought the focusing would be similar to the kit lens seeing as they're both AF-S lenses. The 105mm is in a different league!

I bought the Nikkor mainly because it has VR. Even though the effectiveness of VR decreases as you get closer to your subject, it still might buy me some breathing space when light is low and the shutter speeds slow down to blurry territory. Is it worth the extra cost? Only time and experience will tell.
 
Last edited:
At the moment I'm between the two Nikon lenses either the 85mm or the 105.

I've been looking at some photos on flickr in a group for the 85mm and there is some really good stuff there.

The 85mm would be so easy to pack up and take walking and on holiday as its so light. Still tempted by the 105 though.

Decisions, decisions.
 
Now you see I had to go and look for the reports after that .

I had pretty much already decided I'll be buying from Wilkinsons Camera's anyway, they are fairly competitive and our camera club has good links with them.

Had a very helpful discussion with them the other week, although still find myself not able to make a decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top