70-300mm cheap macro lens?

Messages
504
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

I have been researching here about what macro lens to buy, and see lots of recommendations for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 which image saving for.

MPB however have a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro. It's only £59. Is it purely down to the aperture that makes it so much cheaper?

I'm only looking for something for macro shots as I have a better 70-300, but it's not macro.

Or am I missing something key here?...

Many thanks.
Steve
 
Hi Dave
A Nikon D7000.
 
No it's purely down to it not being a real macro lens or being good for anything really
 
Ok thanks. What makes it not a proper macro lens (apologies if this is a silly question).
 
Macro, in the description of the 70-300, is used to indicate that it can focus closer than normal for a lens of that type.

Assuming the Nikon mount version is the same as Sony Mount, then in Macro mode it has a minimum focus distance of 950mm (rather than 1500mm), and a max magnification of 1:2
It's a general budget telephoto, which can do a bit of close up work.

A 'real' macro lens is one that will actually provide a 1:1 Magnification - the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro has a minimum focus distance of 300mm and 1:1 max magnification - it will also be optimised for ease of fine manual focus.
 
What makes it not a proper macro lens (apologies if this is a silly question).

It is a slow lens, but it's not a true 1:1 macro.

A mate has the Tamron 90 & he has some pretty good results.

If you are interested in shooting insects (or anything skittish) you might be better with something with a longer reach. The Nikon 105 is good (but not cheap new) & the Sigma 150 was supposed to be good too.
Save up a bit & keep checking for a pre-owned one?
 
It is a slow lens, but it's not a true 1:1 macro.

A mate has the Tamron 90 & he has some pretty good results.

If you are interested in shooting insects (or anything skittish) you might be better with something with a longer reach. The Nikon 105 is good (but not cheap new) & the Sigma 150 was supposed to be good too.
Save up a bit & keep checking for a pre-owned one?
Thanks. I think I'll keep saving. :)
 
Or you could get a Raynox150 and then the fun starts :)
Yes I've heard about them and see they're rated highly. I must do some research as I'm not aware of what they really do yet...
 
Hello all,

I have been researching here about what macro lens to buy, and see lots of recommendations for the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 which image saving for.

MPB however have a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro. It's only £59. Is it purely down to the aperture that makes it so much cheaper?

I'm only looking for something for macro shots as I have a better 70-300, but it's not macro.

Or am I missing something key here?...

Many thanks.
Steve
Thats not a proper macro lens, in fact its far from it! Some lens makers, mainly Sigma, add the word 'Macro' to their lens designations if their minimum focus distance is slightly shorter than normal, but we are only talking a few CMs.
 
Back
Top