Which Nikon Macro lens?

BigLoada

BigLoada

Suspended / Banned
Messages
269
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks, I want to start doing some still life macro shots using my homemade light tent and am saving for a lens but I see Nikon do a 60mm, 105mm and 200mm. Which would be the best and why do they have different focal lengths? Do the longer lenses allow you to focus in closer? Any help appreciated as its something I know nothing about:)
 
I went though the same thing when I was looking for a macro for my 400D. I was surprised to learn that they don`t generally focus closer, they simply allow you a greater working distance - however this in itself can be a disadvantage.

I went for the Tamron 90mm Macro for my Canon. Absolutely stunning lens.
 
Great thanks! Thats cleared that up for me. I think the 105 will be the one and its also got VR I think, though dont know if I need it or not.. Why is the 200 good for bugs, is it because you can stand further away from them?

Also, can macro lenses also be used as a "normal" lens say if I wanted to take portraits or landscape or whatever or do they only focus close up?

Thanks :)
 
I'd probably recommend the 105 (not necessarily the VR version, VR is pointless for macro) in Nikon fit. I had a 60mm but found it too short - but the new 60mm f/2.8 AF-S is lovely optically though.

All will render images at 1:1, its just a case of how you need close you need to be from sensor plain to subject distance.

For bugs, consider the 150mm Sigma - definately don't get a 60mm for that! A 105-ish lens is also fine for that.
 
Great thanks Puddleduck, I think 105 it is then. I don't intend doing bug shots much, its mainly for still life stuff.
 
Hi,

I have the 105mm Nikon, not the VR version. It's a fabulous lens, and used with a close-up filter, can get a lot closer. Here is a 1:4 taken with the 105 and filter:

DSC_0612.jpg


Here is the dial side, but without the filter:

DSC_0609.jpg


Both were shot in natural light, tripod mounted and in mirror up mode.
 
Those are great shots mate, exactly the kinda thing I want to do. By the way on the Nikon site it looks like the only do a VR version now.
 
Also consider the Sigma 150 Macro, I borrowed a fellow TP'ers and it's now top of my Xmas list. It's a similar price to the 105 Nikon (~£400-440)
 
I've got the Nikon 105 VR.
Yes it can be used as a general purpose lens.
Works well for portraits and my boy has used it to take shots at speedway, from stand to track and did the job. I like it and use it quite a lot for bug shots. Expensive but does the job.

dougdarter
Can you give some info about your "close up filter"?
Your shots look very impressive.
 
Rockshifter said:
I've got the Nikon 105 VR.
Yes it can be used as a general purpose lens.
Works well for portraits and my boy has used it to take shots at speedway, from stand to track and did the job. I like it and use it quite a lot for bug shots. Expensive but does the job.

dougdarter
Can you give some info about your "close up filter"?
Your shots look very impressive.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Close up filters, are really dioptre lenses which allow you to focus much closer to your subject. This is a big advantage, because the closer you get to the subject, the larger and more detailed the images.


The large picture was taken with the camera tripod mounted with a +3 dioptre mounted. The shot was 1 second @ f13, using available light. It was exposed in 'mirror up' mode.

Here is some more info on 'Close up filters':

http://www.valsphotography.co.uk/information/Lenses_Filters.html
 
I got a HOYA +4 close-up filter and it's excellent - 10% of the costs of a proper macro lens but just as good optically.

Shot at ISO800 - f/4.5 - 1/80thsec without +4 close-up filter
DSC_6416.jpg


Shot at ISO800 - f/4.5 - 1/80thsec with +4 close-up filter
DSC_6415.jpg


It's not the best example and it's not a 100% crop but it gives you an idea about how much difference it makes to a standard lens. The fiter was about £22 for a 67mm filter.
 
10% of the costs of a proper macro lens but just as good optically.

Looking at your crop, its about 10% as good as a proper macro lens, so I think you (just) got your monies worth....
 
Puddleduck, don't be so pompous...

Slightly better example for those who are genuinely interested:

DSC_6409.jpg
 
I love the colours in this, and it's nice and sharp, but it's not a macro shot - unless those fibres are the diameter of an human hair:shrug:
 
Take a look @ the Tokina 100 Macro, Truly excelent build quality & razor sharp too. Handling is also very good with instant switching between manual & auto focus using a sliding clutch mechanism on the focusing ring. Priced @ about £270
 
I've got the Sigma 180 macro,nice sharp lens in the right hands. Unfortunately thats not me yet :shake: taken some nice general shots with it though:thumbs:
 
Dougdarter, they're pieces of paper at about twice lifesize. It's a length of paper 'strands' glued at both ends and then folded into this amazing shape for display – got it from Hobbycraft and thought it'd look nice...

I know what you mean though – it's not traditional macro but that shot would never be possible without the screw-in lens is what I'm trying to say. Think I should have posted an equivalent pic without. It was more for the benefit of Puddleduck geting all uppity... :)
 
RichieRich said:
I went though the same thing when I was looking for a macro for my 400D. I was surprised to learn that they don`t generally focus closer, they simply allow you a greater working distance - however this in itself can be a disadvantage.

I went for the Tamron 90mm Macro for my Canon. Absolutely stunning lens.
Click to expand...

My 90mm Tamron is one of the sharpest lenses that I own. It holds its own against the quality of my Canon L class lenses.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/

Apparently it does equally well compared with some Nikon glass:

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/90_macro/
 
I needed a macro lens for a job, and had just sold mine (:lol:) - never need one for yonks...and then..

Anyhow I picked up a Tamron 90mm macro lens, it's a pre-Di version but optically identical to the newer one, and its FAB. Sharp as a knife with bokeh to die for.

Actually the Tammy 90mm was my first ever serious macro lens, and it like coming home - this lens just "has it"
 
specialman said:
Dougdarter, they're pieces of paper at about twice lifesize. It's a length of paper 'strands' glued at both ends and then folded into this amazing shape for display – got it from Hobbycraft and thought it'd look nice...

I know what you mean though – it's not traditional macro but that shot would never be possible without the screw-in lens is what I'm trying to say. Think I should have posted an equivalent pic without. It was more for the benefit of Puddleduck geting all uppity... :)
Click to expand...

for people who maybe new to macro who may read this in the future I think its important to point out that true macro 1:1 on 1.6 crop DSLR means an object approx 23mm tall (portrait) or 16mm (landscape) will fill the frame without cropping.

1_1.jpg


so 2:1 in portrait would mean a object approx 11mm x 8mm will fill the frame without cropping
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top