After some macro lens advice...

robrevens

robrevens

Messages
414
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
SWMBO will shortly be getting some inheritance, so I have permission (written!) to spend up to about £400 on a macro lens. I currently have a Nikon D60, and would like to have AF available, but I could be dissuaded. I want a genuine macro (1:1).

I'm currently looking at the Tamron SP90 (I already have the old MF adaptall/2 one, sadly without an adaptor) http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-tamron-90mm-f2-8-macro-nikon-fit-with-motor-/p1030805 for about £350 and the Nikon 60mm http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-60mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-micro-lens/p1025665 or 85mm http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-85mm-f3-5-g-ed-af-s-vr-dx-micro-nikkor-lens/p1033888 both around the £395 mark.

Any other suggestions, or has anyone already compared these 3? Help me spend some cash :).
 
2nd hand sigma 150mm macro?
 
Thanks for the suggestion. What would the benefit be over the others (apart from the obvious reach)?

I kind of wanted to buy new, but if the sigma 150 is much better I could be persuaded to go that route.
 
Subject ot distance @1:1 ratio is bigger. Not sure about the others but the front element doesnt move. Bit of a beefy lens! Doubles up as a nice short telephoto lens. The Focus limiter is great (not saying the others dont have this).
 
Thanks! I think I'll add that to my list - I also notice that sigma do a 180mm macro at about £460. Wonder if I can squeeze to that?
 
I have the Tamron 90mm and I used to have the Sigma 150mm as well (at the same time).

They are both very sharp (the Tamron seemed a tad sharper but that would be splitting hair).

The Sigma benefited from the extra reach for insects BUT the Tamron was better for flowers and other close-ups.

The Sigma has faster and silent AF + it does not extend like the Tamron does.

SO, get the Sigma if you can afford it. If not the Tamron IS an excellent lens (and that is the reason I kept it) as I did not use the Sigma that much (was using the Canon 300mm f2.8 with tubes for insects).

NOTE: The Sigma 180mm is not as good as the 150mm. It is an older model, not as sharp, much larger and heavier and (if I remember correctly but I am not 100% sure) extends when focusing.
 
I don't think there's a bad macro out there.

One of the longer options is an interesting idea, but I think my first choice would be the Nikon 105 VR. It's a fantastic lens, lovely build, and while they say VR doesn't help with macro, it does! Used one for £400?
 
Thanks again for the suggestions. Anyone used the Nikon 85mm Micro?
 
For what it's worth I ordered a Tamron 90mm on Friday at 14.00 from WHE. It arrived at 08.30 on Saturday morning. I must say it's a great lens (I'm only a newbie so don't know much) I too wanted to buy new and I wanted to retain AF.

I'm really impressed with the pics i've taken already and can't fault the lens for what I paid.

Some of the reviews i've read do say it's a bit slow auto focussing, but I haven't really noticed this and have had no experience of something like the Nikon 105mm. If money allowed I would have went for the Nikon 105, but all things said i'm happy after 24 hours of ownership.
 
Bigvin said:
For what it's worth I ordered a Tamron 90mm on Friday at 14.00 from WHE. It arrived at 08.30 on Saturday morning. I must say it's a great lens (I'm only a newbie so don't know much) I too wanted to buy new and I wanted to retain AF.

I'm really impressed with the pics i've taken already and can't fault the lens for what I paid.

Some of the reviews i've read do say it's a bit slow auto focussing, but I haven't really noticed this and have had no experience of something like the Nikon 105mm. If money allowed I would have went for the Nikon 105, but all things said i'm happy after 24 hours of ownership.
Click to expand...

Just a comment on auto-focus really. It's great for normal and close-ish distances (obviously!) but for macro, like around 1:1, most people find manual focus is better.

That is, focus roughly and then adjust the exact position of the plane of sharpness by rocking your body gently backwards and fowards. Give it a try :)
 
I have the Sigma 150mm f2.8 and I've been thinking of getting something to fill the gap between it and my 50mm.

I think the 150mm is lovely and I'm very happy with the image quality but I do find it difficult to shoot hand held and so I crank up the ISO to 400 or 800, this obviously wont be an issue for those who use a tripod (and the Siggy has a lovely tripod collar) most of the time. I don't mind the additional noise so upping the ISO is ok for me.
 
HoppyUK said:
Just a comment on auto-focus really. It's great for normal and close-ish distances (obviously!) but for macro, like around 1:1, most people find manual focus is better.

That is, focus roughly and then adjust the exact position of the plane of sharpness by rocking your body gently backwards and fowards. Give it a try :)
Click to expand...

Yeah cheers Richard. I do use MF for any macro work, I was just referring to the AF when I use it as a 'normal' lens. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top