which macro?

355858

355858

Messages
676
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
i wanna know what the major advantages are over the two Nikon micro lenses?

60mm and 105mm

Is it worth the extra for the 105mm?? as VR seems bit pointless on macro cos you surely wouldnt try and shoot hand held??

Cheers ben
 
Good question, something I'm also interested in. I'm somewhat underwhelmed with the macro range from Nikon after using the MP-E 65 but I'm just looking at specs and have not personally tried any of the lens as yet so I know I'm being judgemental without having anything to judge. So yes, I will be realy interested with the feedback on this thread.
 
will it give more detail than the 60mm? i guess it will be able to focus closer and at a higher magnification? sorry i dont have a clue about macro....
 
oh ok so i guess the 105mm seems better? but at nearly double the price.. lol
 
i dunno if its just me being a bit snobby but for some reason i like to stick to all Nikkor lens.. so i guess the 105mm is going to basically be alot better for living subjects as you have a better working distance, as with the 60mm you'l have to be closer? but i guess since theyre both 1:1 they will take same photos??
 
oh ok so will the 105mm have a biggger range of DOF?
 
ahhhh ok, i see.. Thanks Chaz in that case i'll deffo be ordering the 105mm lens :)
 
355858 said:
i dunno if its just me being a bit snobby but for some reason i like to stick to all Nikkor lens.. so i guess the 105mm is going to basically be alot better for living subjects as you have a better working distance, as with the 60mm you'l have to be closer? but i guess since theyre both 1:1 they will take same photos??
Click to expand...

Some people have that view, and that's fine, but don't write it off without giving it a chance at least! If you're not too fussed about VR, the Sigma 105 can give stunning images, and at half the price of the Nikkor. Look up some shots by a member called 'Ajophotog' on here, and you'll see what the Sigma can do ;)
 
Also, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is meant to be a cracking macro lens (And the price is right too)
 
I bought a Vivitar series 1 105mm F2.5 macro lens for £80 recently. It was made by a company called Kiron. It is built like a tank and is reckoned by many to be one of the best macros ever made. The photograph below was taken with it.



They come up on ebay now and again. If you google it there is a lot of info about it
 
cool
 
have you any pics u have taken with it?
 
Naith said:
Also, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is meant to be a cracking macro lens (And the price is right too)
Click to expand...

The Tamron 90mm is a great lens and that's the one I'd buy. It's very sharp and if you fancy a giggle, put 4 X2 convertors on it and get some lights, mini tripod and a remote release then discover a whole new world! :wacky:
 
anyone know if the sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Lens does a good job with macro?
 
are you shooting DX or full-frame?

true that the 105 would give you more space between lens & subject, but I actually prefer to do most of my macro work handheld (!) with aid of (a few) flashes, so in DX format the 105 often feels a bit too long. For whatever reason, I've tried to get along with the 105 numerous times, but I keep coming back to the 60mm as my favourite for shooting DX format. Especially on flower photos, this lens really shines.

if you're looking for something with the 90mm focal lenght on an FX body (i.e. same as the 60mm on DX body), then the Tamron 90mm is supposed to be good, though i've not tried one extensively myself.

now (and i'm getting ready to duck in case the purists catch me), if you manage to find the excellent 70-180mm nikon Macro Zoom (and can afford it), then I wouldn't hesitate a a moment to jump on it. it's particularly great for shots of 'shy' bugs, where moving back & forward to re-compose may scare them off.

finally, re: VR feature on the new 105. that may not be much use for Macro work, but if you choose to double the lens up as a portrait lens, then VR is may be helpful. But in my case, I tend to prefer the older macro lenses to the new ones - in particular the 60mm AFD to the newere AFS version.
 
355858 said:
anyone know if the sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Lens does a good job with macro?
Click to expand...

The 150mm is a excellent lens, but it is quite heavy and needs good technique to hand hold. The sigma 105mm is also a cracking lens for the price nice and light but doesn't have internal focus or a internal focus motor (Same as the Tamron), personally I've not used the Nikon 105mm VR but by all accounts its a very capable lens with AFS and internal focusing, no matter which lens you get you will need a flash to get the best from it. As for tripod use bugs will mostly be long gone before you've messed around trying to get the camera setup.;)

reviews

Nikon 105

Sigma 105mm

Sigma 150mm

Tamron
 
You can also use a TC with the 105 VR.

I've used my 1.4x TC-14E II with it, but largest aperture it stops down to is f4
 
I personally think it depends on what purpose you need?

For big item macro, for example a ring, 60mm is better than 105mm. But for small bug or butterfly, 105mm is the winner.

You normally need a cirle flash by using 60mm to take a very close macro.
 
355858 said:
have you any pics u have taken with it?
Click to expand...

If you check my recently bumped post in for sale section you will see some pics of my 50mm which were taken with the tamron, part of the reason for me selling is that I have hardly used it but happy to take some more if you like.
 
cheers for the review links dogfish, you can really see some purple fringing on the Nikkor 105mm lenses sample photo, do you think that would be a common occurance? the sigma 150mm seems to have a much better quality sample photo, which one should i go for? lol
 
Seems Nikon do a 85mm f3.5 VR DX now.....chuck that into the pot as well as one to consider....

Ah, its out December though......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top