Macro lens

TrishR

TrishR

Messages
436
Name
Trish
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I'm looking to buy a macro lens for my nikon D90 would any of you folk out their have any ideas. My budget would be up to £250-£300 at a push. Thanks
 
TrishR said:
Hi, I'm looking to buy a macro lens for my nikon D90 would any of you folk out their have any ideas. My budget would be up to £250-£300 at a push. Thanks
Click to expand...

I've got a Sigma 150mm for my D300 and am very pleased with the results
 
Have you considered extension tubes £150 for a decent set like my Canons, why a lens.

Img_6004.jpg
 
what do you want to use it for?

The tamron 90mm and sigma 105mm both receive excellent rest results and user reviews and should be found within your budget.
 
I never have and never will want a macro lens, I doubt there is anything I am unable to do with a good set of tubes and remain using my Canon lens.

This was and is my first and last one and only shot os a spider, as I have no interest in bugs, using a 12mm Canon tube with a Canon 20-135 lens

spider.jpg


Pb100004.jpg


kjhgjgjgjgjj.jpg
 
Last edited:
When shooting Nikon i used both the sigma 105mm (first macro lens :-) ) and the sigma 150mm macro lens, both of which produce good IQ, the 150mm is quite heavy and can be difficult to hand hold and would be at the top end of your budget if not just outside. to get the best from any macro lens you will need to use a diffused flash as your likely to be shooting around F16 to maximize DOF.
 
JSER said:
I doubt there is anything I am unable to do with a good set of tubes and remain using my Canon lens.
Click to expand...

Go anywhere between 1:1 and infinity without having to dismount the lens and swap tubes around?
 
And this takes how long, 5 seconds max, you make it sound hard

Place your foot on the clutch, depress the clutch whilst holding the gear knob, push the gear knob to the 1st gear setting, slowly raise your left foot releasing the clutch whilst pressing the accelerator.

Or to put it another way "pull away"

No need to make things sound more difficult than they actually are
 
JSER said:
And this takes how long, 5 seconds max, you make it sound hard

Place your foot on the clutch, depress the clutch whilst holding the gear knob, push the gear knob to the 1st gear setting, slowly raise your left foot releasing the clutch whilst pressing the accelerator.

Or to put it another way "pull away"

No need to make things sound more difficult than they actually are
Click to expand...

When I'm going from photographing a 1cm hoverfly to photographing 3 inch long very skittish dragonfly it is.

I'm not diminishing the value for money of extension tubes, but there are applications where having a true macro lens is much more suitable.
 
There is more to macro than just bugs and there are serious photographers other than just those interested in bugs hence tubes are ideal for superb work.
 
JSER said:
There is more to macro than just bugs and there are serious photographers other than just those interested in bugs hence tubes are ideal for superb work.
Click to expand...

Tubes have limitations, like loss of light causing a dark viewfinder making focus difficult, a normal lens is not optimised for close work and will not be as sharp as a macro lens and probably wont resolve as much detail, a normal lens especially a zoom will suffer field curvature issues. While tubes are OK, if you have the money for a true macro lens and you want to do macro more than a dabble i'd personally always go for the lens. I've used tubes with a 85mm prime for less than 1:1 for a year after selling my siggy 150mm but i have gone back to a siggy 150mm OS for ease of use over the tubes - still use tubes with the 150mm & MP-E65mm when needed.
 
Macro lenses have their limitations too, price for one,

http://www.ehow.com/list_6779419_disadvantages-macro-lenses.html

I suggest this for reading too.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

Why is it anyone with a macro lens always knocks other alternatives. Financially if I wanted to I could buy a quality macro lens tomorrow, however I am capable of producing quality macro shots with my tubes so I don't want to any more than I would waste money on a ringflash for £2-300.

a 90mm macro lens is a 90mm lens and so on, my 28-130 is azoom that can easily and superbly with tubes be used for macro, as can other lenses and at the end of the day I still have a zoom.

I am not contesting what is better or not I am doing what forums are supposed to do, offer advice and alternatives ..................
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Macro lenses have their limitations too, price for one,

http://www.ehow.com/list_6779419_disadvantages-macro-lenses.html

I suggest this for reading too.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm

Why is it anyone with a macro lens always knocks other alternatives. Financially if I wanted to I could buy a quality macro lens tomorrow, however I am capable of producing quality macro shots with my tubes so I don't want to any more than I would waste money on a ringflash for £2-300.

a 90mm macro lens is a 90mm lens and so on, my 28-130 is azoom that can easily and superbly with tubes be used for macro, as can other lenses and at the end of the day I still have a zoom.

I am not contesting what is better or not I am doing what forums are supposed to do, offer advice and alternatives ..................
Click to expand...

and i'm just offering the same - advice and pointing out issues with tubes - something you have not.......... A 90mm lens is a 90mm lens but a 90mm Macro lens is a totally different beast, your 28-130 can be used as a close-up lens with tubes , but a dedicated macro lens will always out perform it. You may be happy with the results but the OP has asked about a dedicated macro lens, which will also provide an excellent f2.8 prime lens -
 
Yes I have pointed out the issues (like you!) go to the links

I know he asked about a macro, perhaps he may not have considered alternatives, people here ask about all sorts of things then someone says "what about", and you often hear "oh thanks never considered that", are we only supposede to reply to 100% specific questions, :thinking:
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
Why is it anyone with a macro lens always knocks other alternatives.
Click to expand...

Nobody here has knocked extension tubes, I'm merely pointing out that there are applications where a macro lens is much more suitable.
I am well aware that there is more to macro than just bugs, which is why the very first thing I posted was:

squishy said:
what do you want to use it for?
Click to expand...

No need to get defensive because I pointed out that while extension tubes may be perfect for you, they won't be for everybody.
 
We had a macro night at our club a few weeks ago and I got to play with a Sigma 105 which was very nice and I managed to get this shot.

Competitorno47Bug1bw800.jpg


I asked for some information about what might be a good lens to go for that didn't cost too much and was sent this link.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm#perf

Might be worth a look. I haven't saved up quite enough to go out and buy just yet.
 
squishy said:
No need to get defensive because I pointed out that while extension tubes may be perfect for you, they won't be for everybody.
Click to expand...

One assumes that this is not a post for me, as If it is I would say, defensive what simply replying to a post, come on...
 
JSER said:
One assumes that this is not a post for me, as If it is I would say, defensive what simply replying to a post, come on...
Click to expand...

Whatever, I don't have the energy or disposition to continue into an argument based on what you or I may have misinterpreted as an aggressive or defensive tone in earlier posts.

Merry Christmas :)
 
I'm with squishy in relation to macro lenses.

My Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR was my first lens purchase after the kit lens. Various lens purchases and a couple of years later, not a single other piece of glass in my collection beats that one in versatility and sharpness. It's not just a macro lens, it's my favourite portrait lens and a great medium tele allrounder. No tubes could do what this lens does for my photography. Well worth the 600 quid I paid.
 
I am sure that you will be able to buy a very capable macro lens within your budget.Try the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm-results as good as the canon or nikon equivalents.
 
Last edited:
I like the tamron more than the sigma, it's the colours I think.

Another option, especially if the camera will be on a tripod, is a nikon MF 105 macro, often go for under £150 on ebay and easy to focus using live view on the D90 when on a tripod. Handheld I'd go for the tamron....
 
Last edited:
With all due respect Jeremy, those photographs you have posted are a brilliant advertisement to get a dedicated macro lens over extension tubes.
 
Has anyone used the Tokina mentioned above. The linked review seems very very good?
 
fracster said:
With all due respect Jeremy, those photographs you have posted are a brilliant advertisement to get a dedicated macro lens over extension tubes.
Click to expand...

Either by intent or by accident you totally missed the point.

I enjoy "close up" not macro, the hard drive has received some nice comments and I appreciate that, I am and never have said I am good, I could buy a dedicated macro lens today, and I don't use credit for anything, however I have no use for it.

I took one "snap" of the spider if you read it, nothing set up, saw it snapped it, I can not justify a macro lens, I have other interests (just spent £400 adding SLX and XT cranksets to my MTBs), but I get pleasure from using tubes and the 28-300 Canon lens.

I am also learning, I have only spent a total of 1 hour doing close up, so "a brilliant advertisement to get a dedicated macro lens over extension tubes" is an innacurate statement as it takes time to learn to use something.

Someone in another thread kindly advised me NOT to use f36 etc but f11/13 as that will produce better effects and a sharper image, lets see what tubes are capable of when I have "learnt" how to use them and not judhe by the first photograph taken eh.

Why is is none of my photos come out as crisp/sharp when loaded to here from photobucket, they are tack sharp on the pc and in print.

By the way, just how good was your first ever pic with a proper lens ?
 
Last edited:
ecniv said:
Hope op has their answer :)


JSER : Photobucket mashs the picture on upload (especially if >1024 on one side). Try saving a smaller version of the big pic with 1024 or less on the long side see whether it gets sharper.
Click to expand...

Thank you, appreciated
 
I don't get why someone who clearly isn't taking macro very seriously (only having done it for about an hour) has such strong opinions about the right kit for the job (be it extension tubes over macro lenses or LED ringlights over ringflash).

Here's the first picture I took with my Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR. Taken in JPEG and unpostprocessed. Yes, it's bland in terms of subject, but it's what you can do with a macro lens straight out of the box, no practice needed. Macro lenses, even the cheaper ones will simply give you better results than tubes.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64371973@N02/5946820403/
 
Last edited:
Did you read my post I am into close up, I enjoy close up, not macro or at least not yet.

Squishy asked TrishR what they wanted a macro lens for and they have never responded, so the post is open, perhaps they were only considering a macro as they had not considered the alternatives or even if they wanted to do macro or close up, all I ever did was offer an alternative, that is what forums are for.

I have never said they will not give better or even as good results have I, please show me where I have!.

Not bad for tubes eh ?, THIS is what I loke doing.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=373759

Great photo I think
 
ecniv said:
105mm d nikkor (used) might be in the range (see links in sig)
150mm sigma or 180mm.. maybe probably used
90mm tamron

Depends if you want to take pictures of skitish insects - the 150 or 180 would be good for those.

Couple that with a set of tubes... :)
Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Before anyone asks it is a serious question ok.

You say couple the macro lens with the tubes, this sounds interesting as no one has stated that before, how much degredation would you experience with say the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens, do you personally believe the improvement over the standard camera lens I am using which in itself is not a cheap basic lens woule be greater.

Thank you
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
IQ is not affected by tubes,
Click to expand...

If that is the case why do people say it is on standard lenses, or am I mis reading this, is it just the starting point of standard lenses that is slightly less than a macro lens.
 
JSER said:
Why is it anyone with a macro lens always knocks other alternatives. Financially if I wanted to I could buy a quality macro lens tomorrow, however I am capable of producing quality macro shots with my tubes so I don't want to any more than I would waste money on a ringflash for £2-300.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see some of your qualoty macro shots take with tubes if you could post some it could be helpful.

I've been through six different macro lenses and all have been extremely good quality and all have outperformed a standard lens used with tubes (yes I have tried this too). Given the OP's budget I'd suggest looking at a secondhand Sigma 105 f2.8 - the AF/MF switch is a pain a but the image quality is outstanding.

4190586751_8bb6f9b387_o.jpg


4190632050_de604846b4_b.jpg
 
As I said I don't do Macro, I am into close up

This was a very hastily set up shot of a 5mm square chip, believe me I will be doing it properly over Christmas,

Img_6148.jpg


Img_6004.jpg
 
postcardcv said:
I'd be interested to see some of your qualoty macro shots take with tubes if you could post some it could be helpful.

I've been through six different macro lenses and all have been extremely good quality and all have outperformed a standard lens used with tubes (yes I have tried this too). Given the OP's budget I'd suggest looking at a secondhand Sigma 105 f2.8 - the AF/MF switch is a pain a but the image quality is outstanding.

4190586751_8bb6f9b387_o.jpg


4190632050_de604846b4_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Now THATS WHAT I WANT TO DO :love: :love: :love:

would the 90mm Tamron be capable of this or am I looking at 105mm

You don't say your lens.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
If that is the case why do people say it is on standard lenses, or am I mis reading this, is it just the starting point of standard lenses that is slightly less than a macro lens.
Click to expand...

Macro lenses (those capable of going to 1:1 magnification) are designed to be sharp up into the corners and have a flat plane of focus, which is not always the case with non macro lenses, zooms more than primes.

Adding tubes will just highlight these design compromises, it is not the tubes themselves.

I use tubes and a 1.4 TC on my Tamron 90mm macro to get to 2.5:1 magnification and still get sharp shots.

This Springtail is about 1mm in length


Springtail by jomike, on Flickr
 
JSER said:
If that is the case why do people say it is on standard lenses, or am I mis reading this, is it just the starting point of standard lenses that is slightly less than a macro lens.
Click to expand...

Std lens are not designed to work at macro distances and any issues will be magnified by using tubes, they work better with primes than zooms. looking at the MTF chart for your lens i would expect to see a marked improvement in IQ from any true macro lens or even using a prime

Tubes with a 85mm work well for closeup.


Female Orange Tip (Anthocharis cardamines)_IMG_1661 by HiddenNature, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top