Macro lens for crop sensor.

ian-83

ian-83

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,541
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone got a good recommendation of a macro lens for a crop sensor Nikon?

Had a look about and the options seem to be Nikon 85mm, Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm.

Nikon and Tamron seem to be half the weight of the Sigma but the Sigma and Nikon have stabilisation built-in.

Do wonder if the Sigma will be a bit front heavy on my D7000.
 
I had the Sigma but the non IS version. It had superb image quality but sometimes was slow to auto focus. That said though, macro usually needs tweaking manually after AF. I can't vouch for the Nikon or Tamron as I'm Canon but all I can say is that I sold my Sigma to part finance the Canon 100L and that lens is a different league again. My point is, maybe you're better off sticking with the Nikon lens. (y)
 
Do you want modern up to date, or will legacy do?
I've just bought a Tamron 90mm for £100. Similar lenses like Vivitar go for roundabout the same price.
You'll need an adaptor to fit onto your Nikon but they are readily available. You'll lose autofocus but that won't matter. Make sure you get one with an aperture ring.
It really depends how keen you are. I want to have a try but didn't fancy the £1200 bill for the Fuji macro.
There are some stonking good shots taken with legacy lenses.
Have a look at these in a thread about extension tubes:-
Possibly stoopid question about extension tubes.
 
Macro primes are all very much the same and you will have difficulty telling them apart from the results, so it really comes down to what are going to be your intended subjects.

For subjects that are not going to be disturbed easily or are inanimate then something in the 60mm range is good.

If you need to be that little bit further away to avoid disturbing a slightly flighty subject look at focal length around 100mm.

Should your subject be very easy to disturb then look at 150 to 180mm.

Obviously the longer focal lengths come at a higher cost, for general macro I would look at a lens around 100mm as being the best compromise between working distance and cost.

Ease of manual focus is more important than IS/OS/VR when you get closer to your subject, the closer you get the more any camera movement gets magnified. Also don't worry about the weight being front heavy, you should be cradling the lens in your palm if handholding and the weight will aid steadiness.
 
I was never really into taking pictures of bugs and stuff but I do love pictures of flowers, leaves and other interesting stuff and I loved my Sigma 150mm f2.8.

I think that key decisions will be working distance and also perspective as even if the working distance isn't an issue the look you'll get when filling the frame with a 50mm or a 150mm will be significantly different and to be honest I much prefer the perspective a longer lens will give for the sort of stuff I like to take close up pictures of.
 
Im using micro nikkor 105 f/2,8 AFD and 55 f/3,5 AIS on my Sony A6000. On 24x36 the 105 is my preferred focallenght giving me the for me optimal amount of background space and blur. The longer lenses gives a to even and blured out background and the shorter to busy and to much. On apsc the 105 can be to long to work in tight spaces shooting fungi etc here the old 55 shines. My brother uses a tamron 90mm on his D5x00 for butterflies and from what ive seen it's a really good lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PhilH04 said:
Macro primes are all very much the same and you will have difficulty telling them apart from the results, so it really comes down to what are going to be your intended subjects.

For subjects that are not going to be disturbed easily or are inanimate then something in the 60mm range is good.

If you need to be that little bit further away to avoid disturbing a slightly flighty subject look at focal length around 100mm.

Should your subject be very easy to disturb then look at 150 to 180mm.

Obviously the longer focal lengths come at a higher cost, for general macro I would look at a lens around 100mm as being the best compromise between working distance and cost.

Ease of manual focus is more important than IS/OS/VR when you get closer to your subject, the closer you get the more any camera movement gets magnified. Also don't worry about the weight being front heavy, you should be cradling the lens in your palm if handholding and the weight will aid steadiness.
Click to expand...

Think around the 100mm focal length is what I am after. Mainly bugs, garden is currently full of spiders,and possible butterfly's, dragonflies etc.

woof woof said:
I was never really into taking pictures of bugs and stuff but I do love pictures of flowers, leaves and other interesting stuff and I loved my Sigma 150mm f2.8.

I think that key decisions will be working distance and also perspective as even if the working distance isn't an issue the look you'll get when filling the frame with a 50mm or a 150mm will be significantly different and to be honest I much prefer the perspective a longer lens will give for the sort of stuff I like to take close up pictures of.
Click to expand...

I looked at the 150 f2.8 and it looks a big old beast.

soeren said:
Im using micro nikkor 105 f/2,8 AFD and 55 f/3,5 AIS on my Sony A6000. On 24x36 the 105 is my preferred focallenght giving me the for me optimal amount of background space and blur. The longer lenses gives a to even and blured out background and the shorter to busy and to much. On apsc the 105 can be to long to work in tight spaces shooting fungi etc here the old 55 shines. My brother uses a tamron 90mm on his D5x00 for butterflies and from what ive seen it's a really good lens.
Click to expand...

Tamron 90mm is one I had a look at think i need to try some out.
 
ian-83 said:
Think around the 100mm focal length is what I am after. Mainly bugs, garden is currently full of spiders,and possible butterfly's, dragonflies etc.
Click to expand...

100mm is probably the most useful FL for what you describe, as long as your subject is settled (either early morning or early evening) you will be pleased with the results. Keep an eye on your background, i.e. the further away from the bg your subject is the more isolated your subject will be.

I use several 'macro' lenses, a 15mm, an MP-E65, 100mm, 150mm and 180mm, my most used lens is the 100mm.
 
Somehow managed to post twice... oops
 
Last edited:
I'd buy the current Sigma 105mm if buying new or the Nikon 105mm AF-D if buying used. I've actually done both over the years.....
 
While I would agree with others that around 100mm is an ideal length for a macro lens - my wife and I have a Sigma 105mm with IS, I have personally found the Tamron SP AF 180mm F/3.5 Di LD[IF] MACRO 1:1 to be incredibly useful. It is not that heavy as it does not possess IS, but I have not found the lack of IS to be a problem if one keeps the shutter speed pretty fast. It is incredibly sharp and gives excellent results, have a look at the macro shots in my gallery if you want some proof:
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/albums/default-album.1996/
They were nearly all shot with the Tamron. The advantage is that, with the extra reach of the 180mm lens, you don't have to get too close and disturb your prey, as others have said. I have also found that it gives very good results when used on a tripod in very low light conditions at much slower speeds. Truth is, during the summer months, when there are plenty of insects around it is hardly off my camera. Another advantage is that it is relatively low priced, new about two thirds the cost, when compared to the Sigma or Nikon equivalent (I use a Canon EOS5D III).
The Sigma 105mm also gives superb results so can say nothing against that one either, and it is very much cheaper than the Nikon version, as is the Tamron 90mm (though I have no experience of this lens).
 
Can't fault the Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR, beautiful portrait lens as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I have the Tamron 90mm f2.8 SP VC USD (F004 model, not the latest version), it's a great lens. Very well built, weather sealed, the VC (VR equivalent) works brilliantly and it has a focus limiter which means when trying to focus on close up objects, it doesn't spend ages going through the whole focal range looking for subjects, this speeds up the AF. Older models of this lens (of which there are plenty) don't all have this feature.

Here's an example taken with the Tamron and my old Canon 60D crop sensor camera:
Buttercup by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr

Also it's a good lens for portraits too.

There's also the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro?
 
Last edited:
I used to have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 which suited me very well but I sold it to help finance a Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR which does a very similar job but has the VR which comes in handy when using it as a shortish telephoto or portrait lens rather than macro. Settled on the Tamron since it turned up 2nd hand before the Sigma 103mm f/2.8 - would have been equally happy with either option.
 
The old Nikon 60mm 2.8D was one of the sharpest lenses I ever used. It's a tad short, but I managed to shoot bugs you close using it. It's also a nice portraiture lens. It can be fit pretty cheap used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top