looking for a nikon fit macro lens

B

bopins

Messages
384
Name
ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi all.

I have started to look around for a macro lens just for playing with, so not going to spend a huge amount.
What do people think of this Tamron 272 SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro.

plenty of reviews on the net, but would like the opinions of anyone who has used/own one.

any other "cheaper" options would also be good!!!:)

Ben.

ps. just wondering now about this one...Sigma 105mm f/2.8 D EX Macro
 
Last edited:
bopins said:
plenty of reviews on the net, but would like the opinions of anyone who has used/own one.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they just be more of the same?

bopins said:
any other "cheaper" options would also be good!!!:)
Click to expand...

The manual focus Tamron Adaptall-2 ƒ/2.5 90mm macro, for around £100 is the easiest to find. You'd need an N/AI mount for £15 - £30. Theres an extension tube available, for 1:1 work.
 
bopins said:
Hi all.

I have started to look around for a macro lens just for playing with, so not going to spend a huge amount.
What do people think of this Tamron 272 SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro.
Click to expand...

I have this lens. I think it is the perfect lens for the occasional macro photographer. I would stretch to the Nikon 105mm if it were to get lots of use, but the Tamron is light, easy to handle, ultra sharp and its a great portrait lens too.
 
Just Dave said:
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 D EX Macro is a fabulously sharp lens, I love mine hardly ever been off the camera since I got it :thumbs:
Click to expand...

thanks for the replies. i wanted real users opinions, not reviews 5 min useage.
Mbp have this lens for £229. would this be a good price for it?:)
 
Just Dave said:
Well pardon me!!

I have had this lens for 6 months, anyway good bye, good luck, you need a better attitude as well
Click to expand...

Linked in wrong quote.ok sorry, but I think you got me wrong.....I was trying to saying the commercial reviewers only use them for a very short time, unlike those who buy them and use them for a while. but hay ho

what I should have put in...
"plenty of reviews on the net, but would like the opinions of anyone who has used/own one."

Wouldn't they just be more of the same?
 
Last edited:
Have a look at the Nikon 60mm AF-D - older AF technology (it's screw driven but will AF on your D300) but it's pretty fast and amazingly sharp. It's got brilliant build quality too. Have had mine for over two years, using it probably every shoot I do for magazines and I have to say that it continuously amazes me that it only cost £200 used. Blow images up to A3 and you can just pick out immense amounts of detail.

One of the main reasons, aside from the relatively compact size (and the cheap price), was that I don't do true macro (1:1) stuff like insects etc but I needed a close-up lenses that could get me in closer than a standard zoom. Plus, the shorter focal length means I can work closer to the subject, which I like. I used a 100mm macro on Canon for years but always found it too long, giving working distances I wasn't comfortable with.

This was shot with it....


Oki Dokey by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I have the Sigma 105mm F2.8 macro,I think optically it is quite good, but I really don't like the matt "flock" texture finish of the lens.

I'm not sure if they are all the same, mines a couple of years old.

I think for the money it's a decent performer.
 
I have the Tamron 90mm Sp 2.8 on my Nikon - bought it second hand about 8-9 years ago and I think they have brought out a new version of it since then. However, it is still going strong, the shots are sharp and colour is good and I have never had a problem with it. For the price it is a brilliant lens for macro and tbh it doubles as a pretty decent portrait lens as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top