Macro lens choice?

andythilo

andythilo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
971
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I'm looking to get a macro lens, but not sure which. My shortlist is the following, with lowest prices I can find new:

Sigma 105 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM - £329.00
Tokina 100 F2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D - £329.00
Tamron 90 F2.8 Di VC USD - £346.99

All the reviews are pretty much saying there is little to choose between them? Anyone have any ideas? I want to buy new really (although I'll consider SH) and UK stock so no grey imports.

Cheers

Andy
 
I suppose one thing to consider is what you want to take pictures of. If you want to take pictures of anything living which might take fright and run or fly away then maybe it would be best to go for a longer lens.

I had a Sigma 150mm and I thought is was very good.
 
I've recently bought the sigma to use on my D7000.
It's a great lens, and I don't use it just for macro.
I do have issues with my technique though when shooting macro, due to the limited dof, resulting in lots of blurry photos :D
 
WingTsun said:
What camera will this be used for, Andy and what kind of macro photography?
Click to expand...

Hi, it'll be on a Nikon D7200. I guess insects and flowers mostly. I can always add extension tubes and I have my DCR250.
 
andythilo said:
Hi, it'll be on a Nikon D7200. I guess insects and flowers mostly. I can always add extension tubes and I have my DCR250.
Click to expand...

Well, for macro work you don't need AF as you won't use it and you'll probably be wanting to set the aperture manually as well, so you might want to take a look at the Laowa 60mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro. I and a few others on the macro forum here use it and it's tack sharp. Where it also wins out is that it can do 2:1 straight out of the box. You need to be comfortable with manual everything so if you're totally new to macro it will take a little practise to learn to use it. You can purchase that from the UK supplier for £319 or direct from Laowa for $330 USD with about a 10 day shipping time.

http://www.ukdigital.co.uk/laowa-lenses.html

At 2:1 you will be getting very close to your subjects but at standard macro 1:1 it's a perfectly doable distance.
 
•


I would suggest you try to find a used Nikkor 105 macro
as I own and use it with pleasure and pride!
 
I read that the Laowa doesn't have automatic diaphram so you have to compose shots at f2.8 and then stop down and shoot?
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


I would suggest you try to find a used Nikkor 105 macro
as I own and use it with pleasure and pride!
Click to expand...

Too expensive, used are nearly £200 more than a new Sigma. For an AF-S VR Nikon that is.
 
andythilo said:
I read that the Laowa doesn't have automatic diaphram so you have to compose shots at f2.8 and then stop down and shoot?
Click to expand...

Depends on the light. If you're wanting to shoot near the f/22 mark then you either do that or use a continuos light source to better light the subject whilst focusing. If you're shooting in the mid-range it's normally fine.
 
andythilo said:
Too expensive, used are nearly £200 more than a new Sigma. For an AF-S VR Nikon that is.
Click to expand...
Dunc @WingTsun will probably kill me for saying this, but I could be persuaded to part with my Vivitar 55mm f2.8. Bought recently to try and get into the macro game but I'm not sure if I have the patience or the knees to make a decent fist of things. Nikon mount, and cost less than half what you mention. Nothing wrong with the lens, just the operator!
 
One you might not have thought of and one which won't cost you very much at all is the Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 Auto-Macro (Komine). I paid £70 for mine and it's a VERY good lens. Take a look at Thomas Shahan's site:

http://thomasshahan.com/#photos

The Vivitar is his go to macro lens. He also uses the Laowa but I've read he more often than not uses the Vivitar.
 
mickledore said:
Dunc @WingTsun will probably kill me for saying this, but I could be persuaded to part with my Vivitar 55mm f2.8. Bought recently to try and get into the macro game but I'm not sure if I have the patience or the knees to make a decent fist of things. Nikon mount, and cost less than half what you mention. Nothing wrong with the lens, just the operator!
Click to expand...

Snap!!! :D
 
At my stage of photography, i.e beginner, I'd rather stick with modern lenses. I can always sell and get an older manual lens for (maybe) better results down the line. At the moment it's more about technique for me. I do appreciate all the comments, please keep them coming.
 
andythilo said:
At my stage of photography, i.e beginner, I'd rather stick with modern lenses. I can always sell and get an older manual lens for (maybe) better results down the line. At the moment it's more about technique for me. I do appreciate all the comments, please keep them coming.
Click to expand...

Then I'd probably look at the 105mm AF-D.
 
To be honest I would get the sigma 105 it's a really nice lens and very sharp
I've had one (an older version ) since 2006 and really pleased with it
I shoot canon so can't comment on the nikon
If you took shots of a real life insect using any of the modern available macro lenses (not a test chart) I don't think that you would be able to tell any difference between them:)
 
WingTsun said:
Well, for macro work you don't need AF as you won't use it and you'll probably be wanting to set the aperture manually as well, so you might want to take a look at the Laowa 60mm f/2.8 Ultra Macro. I and a few others on the macro forum here use it and it's tack sharp. Where it also wins out is that it can do 2:1 straight out of the box. You need to be comfortable with manual everything so if you're totally new to macro it will take a little practise to learn to use it. You can purchase that from the UK supplier for £319 or direct from Laowa for $330 USD with about a 10 day shipping time.

http://www.ukdigital.co.uk/laowa-lenses.html

At 2:1 you will be getting very close to your subjects but at standard macro 1:1 it's a perfectly doable distance.
Click to expand...

I have the Sigma 105 OS HSM and it's also a stunning portrait lens, as well as other things.

What you say about MF and Macro is true 90% of the time but AF is very useful for other uses.

To the OP - Although I'm a Canon man so can't comment on the comparable Nikon lens mentioned, I'd question whether the extra for the Nikon is worth it. When I was testing (Canon 100mm macro L, Tamron 90mm and Sigma 105mm OS) the Simga came out on top in IQ though the others were very close. I certainly couldn't justify spending the extra on the Canon L lens.
 
Last edited:
Decided on a new Sigma via Amazon Prime. MBP had a secondhand one but it was only £30 cheaper. Should get it tomorrow :D

Have to look at getting some extension tubes now and a flash of some sort ...
 
Would you like me to offer a set of Kenko tubes in the Nikon classified section?
 
andythilo said:
Decided on a new Sigma via Amazon Prime. MBP had a secondhand one but it was only £30 cheaper. Should get it tomorrow :D

Have to look at getting some extension tubes now and a flash of some sort ...
Click to expand...
I'd wait and see how you get on with the lens before looking at extension tubes etc.:)
 
I have newer owned Sigma 105, but have Tamron 90 and Nikon 60mm and and used Tokina and Nikon 105mm. All on FX.

Tamron (F004 or the new F017 version) is superior to Tokina. Optically they are about the same, but the Tamron doesn't extend when focusing, is silent, has stabilisation, has very useful three position focus limiter (full, macro, non-macro), environment sealing, etc. These make it much better option.

Nikon 105mm VR is fine, buch much more expensive and there is too much bookeh fringing for my taste. Tamron is also sharper at small apertures.

My favourite macro lens for the stuff I shoot (product photos) is Nikon 60mm 2.8G. If you can handle 48mm working distance nothing beats it.
 
Lens turned up today!, first impressions, it's very heavy and well built! I also ordered a Meike TTL ring flash. Got it all put together and found a nice green cabbage to test it on. Camera was rested on the worktop, manual focus, VR off. Rear flash sync and set to 1/250 I think. I also used the timer to avoid moving the camera/lens.

I didn't realise how amazing live view was, you can really zoom in to focus!

Not particular exciting shots, but it's a start :D. Found this tiny bug stuck in a water droplet. No idea what it is though.

DSC_1636 by AndyThilo, on Flickr

DSC_1652 by AndyThilo, on Flickr

DSC_1648 by AndyThilo, on Flickr
 
Quick question, would having a set of extension tubes, negate the need for the Raynox? If so I'll send it back to Amazon and save me some £££
 
andythilo said:
Quick question, would having a set of extension tubes, negate the need for the Raynox? If so I'll send it back to Amazon and save me some £££
Click to expand...
•


I would not consider anything else as…

— there can't be added optical negative effects
— the AF and aperture controls are maintained
— no glass is added in the equation

…but that's just me!
 
andythilo said:
Quick question, would having a set of extension tubes, negate the need for the Raynox? If so I'll send it back to Amazon and save me some £££
Click to expand...

When considering my previous responses and your subsequent actions, maybe I should answer in the negative in order to get a positive outcome? :D
 
Don't take offense lol. It's just how I am. I did say all along that I wanted a new lens. Just can't see why I'd need the Raynox and a set of tubes. The DCR250 makes the lens crazy close to objects. I REALLY do appreciate all the feedback and suggestions *hugs* :D
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


I would not consider anything else as…

— there can't be added optical negative effects
— the AF and aperture controls are maintained
— no glass is added in the equation

…but that's just me!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd agree. The Raynox is a very very high quality piece of glass and has no ill effect on the image.

The thing to remember about extension tubes is they cut down the amount of light, important for macro where you might be shooting stopped down a lot of the time to keep useful DOF.
 
odd jim said:
important for macro
Click to expand...
•


Everything is important in macro. One has to set up
the priorities and go accordingly. I can buy anything
as I have no budget limitations; so my choices are
directed by the technical needs I have and not the
prices solutions may cost.

If I can afford the much better solutions, that are far
from being the most expensive, I must have a wider
scope on the work I have to do and invest the money
wisely.

My chosen direction took me to extension tubes and
consequent flash technologies…
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•


Everything is important in macro. One has to set up
the priorities and go accordingly. I can buy anything
as I have no budget limitations; so my choices are
directed by the technical needs I have and not the
prices solutions may cost.

If I can afford the much better solutions, that are far
from being the most expensive, I must have a wider
scope on the work I have to do and invest the money
wisely.

My chosen direction took me to extension tubes and
consequent flash technologies…
Click to expand...

I agree with you in one respect but at the end of the day it's about getting the shot. @GardenersHelper does some incredible work and I believe he often uses a Raynox.
 
WingTsun said:
I agree with you in one respect but at the end of the day it's about getting the shot. @GardenersHelper does some incredible work and I believe he often uses a Raynox.
Click to expand...
•

True!

…but Nick is devoted more to macro
technologies within the equipment he
intends to use and explores (and ex-
plains well too) the different possible
approaches.

His working conditions are not the sa-
me as Andy's who intends to use a DX
DSLR.
 
WingTsun said:
Well, for macro work you don't need AF as you won't use it
Click to expand...

Hold on Dunc. You don't need it as you don't use it. But some people do use it. I think it is one of those (many) things that is worth trying to see if it works for you. I'm sure there are plenty of shots I wouldn't have captured if I hadn't have been using AF.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•

True!

…but Nick is devoted more to macro
technologies within the equipment he
intends to use and explores (and ex-
plains well too) the different possible
approaches.

His working conditions are not the sa-
me as Andy's who intends to use a DX
DSLR.
Click to expand...

What does the fact he uses a crop have to do with the situation? I've used my Raynox on my cropped bodies as well as my FF body?
 
GardenersHelper said:
Hold on Dunc. You don't need it as you don't use it. But some people do use it. I think it is one of those (many) things that is worth trying to see if it works for you. I'm sure there are plenty of shots I wouldn't have captured if I hadn't have been using AF.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, Nick. I know you use it very well but most starting out won't. That said, I'll be joining you soon. :wideyed::wacky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top