Lens recommendation. Nikon Macro

Mahoneyd187

Mahoneyd187

Messages
2,604
Name
Danny
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys

I've never owned or used a macro lens previously.

I have several new born portraits coming up and really want a macro lens for the hands/feet/eye with really shallow dof.

I currently use a 35 1.8 & 85 1.8, so ideally I would want something not too close to these lengths, so I can use the macro for an alternative length for portraits also, ie I don't want a 90mm Tamron macro as I have an 85.

I have a suspicion that the 60mm afs may be too short and I may get in the way of the light?

105mm vr? Sigma 150 2.8?

Or do any of the 2.8 zooms focus close enough for this?

Would really appreciate any advice

Thanks a lot

Danny
 
The Nikon 105 macro is pretty good. I have the VR version as I use it for portraits too.

The 24-70 focuses pretty close mind, but having never shot a babies foot, I dont know if its close enough
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Stick some auto tubes on you 85mm - no loss of IQ just closer focusing
Click to expand...

Any links at all?

Is an auto tube the same as an extension tube?
 
Not really sure what you are after as far as the final image, but newborns (heck, most any age) don't often have skin that would look that appealing at true macro...at least not without a lot of PP work.

Are you sure your 85 1.8 won't give you the isolation you want shooting wide open?
 
The sigma 150 would be better for shallow DoF with it's longer focal length giving a more diffuse background. It's a very nice general use long prime (baring in mind that it's AF isn't brilliant because it's a macro).

But I second the ext. tubes point, it's a cheap way of getting your 85 closer.
You buy them in sets, so you can use just one or two in any combination to give the desired macro ratio.

If you're interested, I reviewed the 150mm here

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=252447&highlight=sigma+150mm+review
 
As a bargain buy, the AF-D 60mm f/2.8 micro is a great lens. The optics are first rate and you feel you get a lot of lens for your money such is the build. You can puck them up used for between £200 and £230 these days, about £70-80 cheaper than the AF-S equivalent. I can't see what camera you're using (profile info not visible on iPhone app) so dint know if non-AF-S is bad for you.....

I use mine now and then as a portrait lens and on a 1.5x crop body it's a nice focal length. Plus, for macro it's not a bad working distance, although I'm sure that for bugs and stuff that spools easily a longer focal length will be better so as not to scare the subject
 
Thanks alot for the info guys! I'm gonna purchase me some extension tubes :)

Will be interesting to see the results, as I said I've never shot anything macro before...
 
Tubes, sigma 150mm or sigma 180mm

I got some from on here for a donation, but usual cost is 10ukp (non af) and to be honest I think manual is better for macro work.

:)

The two sigmas just mean you dont need to be so close (ie insects, butterflies, dragonflies, snakes...)

For Nikon, the 105mm is brilliant. Plus the tubes, even better. Check out the flickr links as I took some pics of M and Ms recently using normal 105 and tubes...
 
ecniv said:
Tubes, sigma 150mm or sigma 180mm

I got some from on here for a donation, but usual cost is 10ukp (non af) and to be honest I think manual is better for macro work.

:)

The two sigmas just mean you dont need to be so close (ie insects, butterflies, dragonflies, snakes...)

For Nikon, the 105mm is brilliant. Plus the tubes, even better. Check out the flickr links as I took some pics of M and Ms recently using normal 105 and tubes...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

If I was going for a macro I think it'd be the Sigma 150mm, as the 105mm Nikon is quite close in FL to my 85mm.

For now I'm gonna give the tubes a go with my 85mm and see how it goes :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top