Which Nikkon macro lens?

Messiah Khan

Messiah Khan

Santa is your dad
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,666
Name
Alasdair Fowler
Edit My Images
Yes
I think the next major purchase I want to make is to get a proper macro lens. At the moment ive only got the stock 18-55mm lens. Im finding that im mainly doing (and enjoying the most) macro shots, so I could do with a decent macro lens. I would also like this lens to double up as a portrait and other midrange shot lens. My camera is a Nikon D40x, so to retain AF, I need to get AF-S or HSM lenses. While I wouldn't be using AF very much in macro shots, I feel this is a feature id like to have for portraits etc. So far im looking at;

Nikkor AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
Sigma APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG HSM
Sigma APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX DG IF HSM

Does anyone have any experience with any of these? Any comments or other suggestions?

Thanks.:)
 
Go for the Nikkor - it's Minty. I played with one on loan from Nikon UK a while back. Don't know about the Sigma's, but the ones I've used in the past were less than brilliant - the coatings aren't as good, even if the glass is.
 
We have the 105mm VR Macro.... brilliant lens... can't imagine anything beating it :thumbs:

I've had for a while the 180mm Sigma and it's good but not in the same league as the VR. It's really useful for giving you some distance from the subject. It's not a bad lens (well, mine isn't) but the VR Nikkor is absolutely peachey! :clap:

Incidentally, the only thing that sucks at Sigma is their quality control. Sometimes you get a good'un, other times not - as Rob has shown!
 
Thanks for the comments so far. So what sort of minimum working distance do you get with the Nikkon? Im really somewhat jealous of the Canon 65/2.8 MPE and its amazing magnification, so im i'll probably be using the macro lens with extension tubes. Am I right in saying that if the amount of extension = the lenght of the lens, then you get a 100% magnification increase? So say you put 50mm of extension tubes on a 1:1 50mm lens, you would get 2:1? If this is the case, should I be looking at shorter lenses to reduce the amount of extension needed to achieve higher magnification?
 
Messiah Khan said:
Am I right in saying that if the amount of extension = the lenght of the lens, then you get a 100% magnification increase?
So say you put 50mm of extension tubes on a 1:1 50mm lens, you would get 2:1?
Click to expand...

Not really, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Using the following formula, you can now work out the magnifaction your going to achieve.

Total extension used / Focal length used = Magnification

First you need to know what the lenses maximum magnification is.
In the case of the Nikon and Canon 50mm f1.8 they're approx. 0.15x magnification.
(this figure can be worked out from the published data you receive with your lens).

To find the Total extension you need to multiply the lenses maximum magnification by
the focal length of the lens, then add the length of extension you are going to use.

0.15 x 50mm = 7.5mm
7.5mm + 50mm = 57.5mm

Now you have the total extension value, you can work out the magnification value.

57.5 / 50 = 1.15x

So using a 50mm extension on a 50mm lens gives 1.15x magnification.

HTH
 
To quote from the Nikon 105mm VR manual...

"Closest focus distance: 0.314m (1 ft.) (life-size)" - that is subject to film (sensor) plane. Plus... there is the digital 'crop' to consider (1.5x). Just had a quick guestimate that the front element to subject is around 15cm, there is a largish lens hood as well (if you use it).

You're fairly correct with your assumptions, (I don't know whether you're factoring in the 1:1 of a macro lens to start with) about extension tubes but don't forget that, with your example, f2.8 becomes f5.6 :(

Have you considered the 60mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor? Another fantastic lens. I'm sticking my neck out here (but Rob's back so I feel a bit brave) I doubt the Canon 60mm Macro compares to the Nikkor... it's hot - RED hot! :thumbs:
 
Joe T said:
The Nikkor is the one to go for unless you are going to be mostly photographing insects.
Click to expand...

Why do you say this?

Brains said:
I have the Nikon....and as above comments...it's a really good lens. Quite a bulky lens but quality shots from it. VR is really useful.
Click to expand...

Thanks.:)

Matt said:
Not really, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Using the following formula, you can now work out the magnifaction your going to achieve.

Total extension used / Focal length used = Magnification

First you need to know what the lenses maximum magnification is.
In the case of the Nikon and Canon 50mm f1.8 they're approx. 0.15x magnification.
(this figure can be worked out from the published data you receive with your lens).

To find the Total extension you need to multiply the lenses maximum magnification by
the focal length of the lens, then add the length of extension you are going to use.

0.15 x 50mm = 7.5mm
7.5mm + 50mm = 57.5mm

Now you have the total extension value, you can work out the magnification value.

57.5 / 50 = 1.15x

So using a 50mm extension on a 50mm lens gives 1.15x magnification.

HTH
Click to expand...

A little more complicated.. hehe. Thanks for the explanation.:thumbs:

chuckles said:
To quote from the Nikon 105mm VR manual...

"Closest focus distance: 0.314m (1 ft.) (life-size)" - that is subject to film (sensor) plane. Plus... there is the digital 'crop' to consider (1.5x). Just had a quick guestimate that the front element to subject is around 15cm, there is a largish lens hood as well (if you use it).

You're fairly correct with your assumptions, (I don't know whether you're factoring in the 1:1 of a macro lens to start with) about extension tubes but don't forget that, with your example, f2.8 becomes f5.6 :(

Have you considered the 60mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor? Another fantastic lens. I'm sticking my neck out here (but Rob's back so I feel a bit brave) I doubt the Canon 60mm Macro compares to the Nikkor... it's hot - RED hot! :thumbs:
Click to expand...


Cheers. That working distance sounds ideal for me.(Better than at the moment where im often resting the subject on the front element):lol: I hadn't actually considered the 60mm f2.8, but looking at it, it doesn't seem to AF on my camera. It looks like a fairly unanimous vote towards the Nikkor AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED then. Shame its not cheaper (But then its also a shame that everything in life isn't cheaper) Looks like im going to have to be a hermit for a while longer to save up.:( Thanks for the help guys.:thumbs:
 
Sorry about that.... I forgot the D40(x) hasn't got a body mounted focussing servo :(

You really won't regret the 105 :thumbs:
 
Joe T said:
MK, the reason one of the others might be better for insects is the longer working distance. Insects tend to fly off when you get close!
Click to expand...

Ah ok. Got ya. I like doing insect shots, but I seem to be doing ok so far, even with the 3-5cm working distance of the Konica Minolta Z3.:) Presumable I could in theory use a teleconverter to boost the focal length and working distance if I so needed.
 
Word of warning. The Nikon 105 VR micro is a G lens, so no aperture ring.

This means you can't use it with Nikon extension tubes, although their teleconverters will work.

The older macro lenses like the 200, 70-180, older 105's and the 60 will work OK with Nikon tubes.

I think there might be third party tubes (Kenko?) that will work with it though.
 
Just noticed you have a D40, so while those older lenses will work with Nikon tubes, they won't do AF with the D40. Apologies for not reading properly.
 
Yeah, I realise the D40 won't AF wih the Kenko extension tubes(although ive read that some people have got it working, possibly with a new revision of the tubes) Didn't realise about the aperture ring though. Would the Sigma lenses work with the Nikon extension tubes? Tbh, if I was using a tube, I probably would be using manual focus anyway, but it would still be nice to retain the feature.
 
Well, to be honest, I'd go for the 105 VR and get a teleconverter (plus a good tripod and maybe a focussing rail) if you decide that want to go past 1:1.

With a D40 and 18-55 I think the 105 VR is a no-brainer as your second lens if you like macro. It's superb value for what it does. As well as being about the most all around useful macro lens available, it's also an 'almost as good' substitute for several grand's worth of other classic medium-tele Nikkors.
 
Look at it this way. The 105 VR goes for about 500 quid, but it does let's say 90% of what the 60, 70-180 and 200 micro, the 85/1.4, and the 105/2 and 135/2 DC (total about £5k) can do, so you could plausibly argue that you're getting about £4,500 worth of value for £500, thereby actually coming out ahead by £4,000 :)
 
Druid, you should be a salesperson for Nikon!:lol: Im certainly leaning towards the the 105 VR. From what I understand, a 105mm lens is also a very nice length for portrait shots as well. Ive already got a good tripod (Manfrotto 190XProB), and a macro rail is somewhere on my list. How will a teleconverter get me past 1:1 btw? I thought it would just increase the effective length of the lens, but also increase the focal distance at the same time. So I would still get 1:1, but at a greater distance. Is this the case, or have I misunder stood it? Thanks for the replies btw, they're helping me a lot. (Although my bank manager is cursing you;) )
 
Well, I don't use TC's myself, but I've seen a serious macro boffin on another forum using (I think) the TC14E + 105 VR to go beyond 1:1, so my impression is definitely that it does increase the magnification at macro distances. I can ask him about the optics involved, which he'll doubtless be able to explain in brain twisting detail, if you're seriously thinking about going that route. Macro anywhere much past 1:1 is a bit of a black art in my experience, and quite a bit more technically challenging than regular macro, so you might perhaps want to think of this as an area for future expansion though, rather than a key factor in choosing a first macro lens.

I was sort of joking above about the '£4k' profit stuff but the sheer versatility of the 105 VR is genuinely a factor for me. If I want to pack just two lenses to go light, despite having a few of the classic nikkors that I mentioned above to choose from, I'm almost certainly going to pick the 105 VR (and the 17-55). The VR feature is almost useless at 1:1, but it's usable past about 1:2 and its extremely useful once you're out of close up range. So as a second lens choice that can also do other medium tele stuff like portraits in a pinch (but vain people may not thank you for it due to its rather 'forensic' rendition of their skin) I'd say the 105 is very hard to beat.

The working distance is a bit short for shy bugs, but the ideal Nikkor for that is the 200 micro, which is a) long, b) heavy c) won't do AF on your D40, so it's not nearly as versatile and is also damned expensive. I find the 105 VR is excellent for chasing butterflies however, as they're fairly big and never sit still for long enough for me to set up my tripod, so the VR comes in very handy. I expect either Sigma would be a bit better than the 105 VR, purely for insect stuff, as I imagine that like the 200 micro, they've got a longer working distance (I've never used one) but for a second lens, I would think that the versatility of the 105 VR counts for more.
 
I just had a quick look at John Shaw's macro book and what he seems to be saying is that TC's effectively extend focal length as you'd expect, at or near infinity, but in close up range they work a bit differently and in effect multiply the magnification. There was a bit more to it, but that was the gist.
 
It may also be worth considering close-up lenses instead of a teleconverter. Using close-up lenses means you maintain the maximum aperture of the lens, which means in turn you have more light to focus (AF even) and compose your shots. They're also cheaper! ;)
 
Ive actually got a Hoya zoom closeup lens that I use at the moment. Only problem is that it is only a 49mm attachment, and it gives some serious spherical distortion. It does allow me to focus up to the front element when using it with the stock lens though.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top