What Macro?

Robert Eva

Robert Eva

Suspended / Banned
Messages
300
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry If it's been asked before, I can't find any threads.
I have a Nikon D3300 and am wanting to pick up the best quality macro lens I can get for the least amount of money (Yorkshire lad )
I am aware some older Nikon lenses will be compatible with my d3300 , but to what extent? IE full compatibility , no auto focus , no information for settings in viewfinder?
I can't seem to find definitive list of what series of lenses give what compatibility.
I am more than happy to get an older series lens and do the focus etc my self , and I am pretty sure that some of the older lenses are built a lot better as well.
I want do some really close up bug and insect type stuff and my kit lens don't cut the Mustard!
Any help or advice would be gratefully received,
Rob.
 
AF-S lenses should be fully compatible.
AF and AF-D lenses will meter but will be manual focus.
AI and AIS lenses will be fully manual.

I'd go for either the AF-D 105mm f2.8 or a Tamron 90mm f2.8 as a cheaper option.
 
Thanks Jonathan, I will do some more home work , much appreciated.
Rob.
 
Have look at the Raynox stuff, not used them myself but seem to be a good way to test out macro/micro without selling a kidney.
 
It depends what exactly you want to shoot.

If bugs then Sigma 150mm or Nikkor 200mm due to long working distance.

If something else (product photography, still life, etc.) then Nikkor 60mm 2.8G. It is spectacular lens for the money.

On DX. I would also consider DX native lenses Nikkor 40mm 2.8G or 85mm 3.5G.
 
I started off with the Tamron 90mm 2.8 as my first macro and its a great lens, I only upgraded after my daughter knocked the lens off a table for me :(
 
Robert Eva said:
I have a Nikon D3300 and am wanting to pick up the best quality macro lens I can get for the least amount of money (Yorkshire lad )
Click to expand...
How much of a *real* Yorkshire lad are you? The best bang-per-buck method of getting into macro isn't to buy a macro lens. Extension tubes and reversing rings are much cheaper.
 
Cannyekerslike said:
Have look at the Raynox stuff, not used them myself but seem to be a good way to test out macro/micro without selling a kidney.
Click to expand...
I've got a Raynox 150 and I find the image circle is so small it vignettes badly until quite long focal lengths. I tried it on my Sony RX10 and even at 200mm (equiv) it's still vignetting. It's advantage is that it simply clips in place but that doesn't outweigh the vignetting.
 
I have a Raynox 250. Works great on longer SLR lenses with no vignetting.

Best bang for buck macro lens is probably the Tamron 90.

I use a 100mm lens for bugs no problem.
 
I use the Sigma 105 f2.8 maco, if you get the leter ones with HSM they are fully compatable, the earlier one the EX is screw drive so wont autofocus, more often than not you will use manual focus anyway for Macro.
 
I just bought a tamron 90mm 2.8 for my d3300' so far loving it. Bit tricky to start with but after a few YouTube videos I'm away.
 
I've got the latest sigma 105 and I couldn't recommend it any higher. It produces lovely sharp and contrasty images. If you can stretch to the budget of it, I paid 370 I think, then I would go for it.
 
If Robert had access to the classifieds I'd have offered him my Sigma 105mm but I got the impression it was over his budget anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top