Beginner 1st Proper macro lens. Which one

Doti B

Doti B

Messages
82
Edit My Images
Yes
Interested in expanding my experience with macro photography. Currently using the macro mode on a 28-105mm Nikon lens - which gives 1:2 magnification. lol got to purchase a dedicated macro lens and in the first instance have narrowed it down to one of
a. Nikon 60mm AF-S f2.8
b. Nikon 60mm AF-D f2.8
c. Tamron 60mm f2.0

Does anyone have experience with one or indeed all of these. If so would be grateful if you could share your experiences

Thanks
 
Are you using it on an APC camera. What do you want to photograph and how close will you be able to get to it (think insects flying off if you get too close?) Depending on these things you might want to consider something longer like a 90mm or a 105mm. Maybe consider the Sigma too
 
I have no knowledge of Nikon lenses, however it may be useful if you could indicate what your intended subjects are, you may get more meaningful advice.

In general lenses in the 60mm region are fine on crop sensors and will give an equivalence of a 90mm lens on a full frame, so if your intended subjects are not going to be easily spooked you will be good to go. For more easily spooked subjects then a longer focal length could be useful as it will give you some working distance.
 
•


I would suggest you to go in the 105 mm focal range as the shorter
macro lenses are better suitable for the reproduction bench.

On top of being a super great macro lens, it is also doing wonders
with portraits and in street photography.
 
I had the Nikon 60mm macro, and tried it on my D70 i bought New in 2004, tried it on the D90 when I upgraded a few years later, as I was photographing butterflies and insects, never got any great shots because i had to get too close to them, a few years ago I bought the Sigma 105, now I'm getting much better results, the 60mm was a cracking lens, nice and sharp and was great for static subjects, just didn't work for me for what i wanted to photograph.
 
My intention at this point would be to shoot plant and insects, with the odd bit of product photography where fine details can really be made to shine. Would also like to use as and when required as a portrait lens. I am currently shooting with a Nikon D7000 which I haven't had for that long. Enjoying the learning curve as coming from a D90
 
I had the Sigma 105mm 2.8 (EX DG HSM)for my D7100 and it was amazing, the working distance is much better for insects. The whole kit was much too big for me though (I like to travel light because of injury) so I've downsized. It was a very good lens that I didn't use half as much as I'd hoped.
 
Last edited:
Forkbeard said:
I had the Sigma 105mm 2.8 (EX DG HSM)for my D7100 and it was amazing, the working distance is much better for insects. The whole kit was much too big for me though (I like to travel light because of injury) so I've downsized. It was a very good lens that I didn't use half as much as I'd hoped.
Click to expand...
That's the lens i have now, with the Nissin MF18 macro flash attached to the front of the lens makes it even heavier, but the results are worth the extra weight
 
have a look at the tamron 90 mm 1/1 ratio f2.8 macro SP Di lens . works well with nikon. I have one and can recommend it
 
Last edited:
Think I'm gonna try and rent a macro to have a proper play prior to making a purchase. At present, based on advice in this thread, going to look at either the Tamron 90 or Nikon/Sigma 105mm. Gonna check rental prices now
 
The Tamron 90mm was the best macro lens I’ve ever owned, tack sharp too.
 
Another vote for the Nikon 105mm which doubles as a portrait lens as said above. Sharp and able to shoot without being right on top of the subject. Better than that and you will get into some serious money outlay.
 
Last edited:
Tamron 90mm= £345
Nikon 105 = £710

double the price for extra 20 mm +Vr. For macro one would normally use a support such as a tripod so VR would be off

Getting the tamron against the nikon means you can get drunk a lot more times on the difference.:beer:
 
Last edited:
You do have a good point there. I think I will rule out the 105mm 2.8 VR as way too expensive for me right now. Think I’ll pit the Nikon 105 AF-D against the Sigma 105.
 
Having used and owned quiet a few over the years ,I now have a sigma 150mm o.s superb bit of kit and just feels better than the shorter ones
 
For flowers and bugs I'd recommend a longer lens for two reasons...

For distance as bugs may run or fly away if you're shooting closer to them with a shorter lens, a longer lens could give you more distance.

Also for perspective.

When I had an APS-C DSLR I thought the Sigma 150mm f2.8 was excellent, it worked well on my 5D too.

These days I use a 50mm lens on MFT giving a 100mm equivalent field of view and I do miss the loss in length from that 150mm lens.
 
Doti B said:
You do have a good point there. I think I will rule out the 105mm 2.8 VR as way too expensive for me right now. Think I’ll pit the Nikon 105 AF-D against the Sigma 105.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 2.8 VR is a great lens but surprisingly it's not that sharp and suffers from a lot of CA, in every other respect it's worth its price.

I've hardly used it but the latest Tamron 90mm seems very good, better than the Sigma 105mm but as everyone buys the Sigma there just aren't very many used copies out there and it's quite expensive new.

The Sigma 105mm is noticeably sharper than the Nikon and given how cheap it is used (£250-280) makes it a very easy choice. Unless you get a bad copy (took me 3 tries to get one I was happy with) I don't think you can really fault it.
 
I use the older non OS Sigma 150mm F2.8 Macro and it's excellent. Gives a good working distance for bugs - although for bigger stuff like large Dragonflies I use the Nikon 300mm F4 unless I get that rare one that's happy to sit still and let me get close enough for the 150mm.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
Really? the one I have is just plain beautiful!
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it is, I liked the Nikon 105mm a lot but it's still not as sharp as Sigma, Tamron or Sony macros.

Saying that, it's not sharpness that put me off the Nikon, it's the CA (I have a whiny post on the forum asking about it a few years ago), in every other respect the Sigma is a worse lens (can't recall how the VR compares) but at half the cost it makes the Sigma a very easy choice as even the worst of them is still a great lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top