Macro newbee

G

Grasshopper

Messages
111
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at getting into macro and obviously need to be looking at a macro lens. I have done a fare bit of macro before but only with my old bridge camera, so I know I like this form of photography, but I now have a D90 and would like some suggestions as to some lenses I could look at. Any help from anyone with any answers would be a really help, Thanks. John
 
Nick_1981 said:
Do you have a budget in mind John?
Click to expand...

I think around £200. I would be more than happy to go for second hand to try and get more lens for my money. Just trying to get a good starting point of what people think are good or bad lenses.
 
Have a look at some of Nikons really old manual macro lenses. Super cheap way of getting into macro work and still no loss of quality!
 
I've dabbled in all kinds of macro through the years. I've done the tubes, reverse ring adapters, add-on bits and pieces and true macro lenses. There is no sub for the latter. The cheap tubes work great, but they are harder work, and once you have them on, the biggest problem is you cannot go straight to normal view.

Have you looked at Nikon's cheapest macro? the 40mm 2.8? because I hear it's great for the price. Sure you have to get right in close, so it's not ideal for active bugs ... but for still life macro it's excellent.

I've been through them all - cheap zoom that claimed "macro" at one end or the other, add-on 'magnifiers', macro tubes, reverse rings, and then true macro lenses. I've had the old 60mm 2.8D which was a cracker, if you can find it used - go for it! I've had the 105mm which is great, but expensive for what it is, and now I have the sigma 150mm 2.8 macro with OS - which seems perfect. Pricey, but, I'm done with the tubes thing.

As mentioned, there are some gem macro lenses out there, you just have to do the research.
 
Cagey75 said:
I've dabbled in all kinds of macro through the years. I've done the tubes, reverse ring adapters, add-on bits and pieces and true macro lenses. There is no sub for the latter. The cheap tubes work great, but they are harder work, and once you have them on, the biggest problem is you cannot go straight to normal view.

Have you looked at Nikon's cheapest macro? the 40mm 2.8? because I hear it's great for the price. Sure you have to get right in close, so it's not ideal for active bugs ... but for still life macro it's excellent.

I've been through them all - cheap zoom that claimed "macro" at one end or the other, add-on 'magnifiers', macro tubes, reverse rings, and then true macro lenses. I've had the old 60mm 2.8D which was a cracker, if you can find it used - go for it! I've had the 105mm which is great, but expensive for what it is, and now I have the sigma 150mm 2.8 macro with OS - which seems perfect. Pricey, but, I'm done with the tubes thing.

As mentioned, there are some gem macro lenses out there, you just have to do the research.
Click to expand...

That's great, thanks for the reply. I was not sure about the tubes as I have gone down the cheap route with things before and got fed up with not being able to get the performance I want and given up.

Thanks also for the couple of suggestions, I was at a total loss as to where to start so I can know look at those Nikons. I would be mainly doing still life so getting up close will not be a problem. I have also seen a Sigma 17-70 in the classifieds. Does anyone know if this is a decent lens or are the zoom macros not such a great idea?
 
I am really struggling with dof with tubes, so I would recommend macro lens, others on here have produced some good shots but its a lot of fidly work.
 
Gr8Shot said:
I am really struggling with dof with tubes, so I would recommend macro lens, others on here have produced some good shots but its a lot of fidly work.
Click to expand...

DOF's the same with a macro lens as it is with tubes , auto tubes are excellent when used with a prime lens and you will struggle to see any improvement in IQ with a dedicated macro lens.
 
The thing with tubes is you can go greater than 1:1, [say, using 68mm tubing on a 50mm lens] which will give a much shallower DOF. The only way you have a hope of getting a sharp image is to manual focus, even with AF tubes, though this is the case even with an AF macro lens. It's nice to know AF is there for standard or less close up shots, but in at closest focus, you're going manual. Where a true macro lens shines is in the handling, focusing at close up [less than 1:1] distances where AF works good, for switching straight to standard distances without having to remove awkward tubes. A good macro lens is a great double for a portrait lens, and the longer ones act as good tele primes too. You can't do anything but macro with tubes.
 
Last edited:
I went out yesterday and tried out the Nikon 40mm 2.8 and 60mm 2.8. Has anyone on here got or had any experience with either of these?
 
Grasshopper said:
I went out yesterday and tried out the Nikon 40mm 2.8 and 60mm 2.8. Has anyone on here got or had any experience with either of these?
Click to expand...

Both of those lenses will be limiting due to the very short MWD at 1:1 ( distance from the end of the lens to subject for 1:1 magnification)' the 40mm is only 20mm and the 60mm is only around 48mm where as the 105mm sigma has about 122mm and the Nikon 105mm ve is 154mm.
 
I have found a 2nd hand sigma 105mm for £300. Does this sound like a decent price and is it the sort of lens people think is worth the money?
 
The trouble with that older sigma 105 is that it extends when focusing in close, to almost double it's original length! No internal focus mechanism, it's also pretty noisey. At this stage I wouldnt pay that much for it, they have a new OS version with IF and HSM, it's £500+ but I'd rather pay the extra for it's speed, quietness and non extension.

I would buy the Nikon 60mm G new over the old sigma. I had the older 60mm D and it's a cracker of a lens, so , so sharp and don't be put off by having to get in close, because the difference between close focus distance of the 105 and the 60 isn't all that much really.
 
Cagey75 said:
The trouble with that older sigma 105 is that it extends when focusing in close, to almost double it's original length! No internal focus mechanism, it's also pretty noisey. At this stage I wouldnt pay that much for it, they have a new OS version with IF and HSM, it's £500+ but I'd rather pay the extra for it's speed, quietness and non extension.

I would buy the Nikon 60mm G new over the old sigma. I had the older 60mm D and it's a cracker of a lens, so , so sharp and don't be put off by having to get in close, because the difference between close focus distance of the 105 and the 60 isn't all that much really.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, I really want to get a macro so I can start shooting but don't want to go for the wrong lens and really did not know where to start. Is the prime that much better than the zooms, I.e. the Sigma 17-70?
 
Grasshopper said:
I have found a 2nd hand sigma 105mm for £300. Does this sound like a decent price and is it the sort of lens people think is worth the money?
Click to expand...

Is bit expensive your looking around £220-£250 second hand, the sigma is an great lens much better working distance that the 60mm, you'll find you get a lot better results using manual focus with macro ( when you adjust the focus you also alter the magnification) and you won't be hanging a ring flash of the end so the extending barrel won't matter.
 
Grasshopper said:
Thanks for the advice, I really want to get a macro so I can start shooting but don't want to go for the wrong lens and really did not know where to start. Is the prime that much better than the zooms, I.e. the Sigma 17-70?
Click to expand...

A zoom lens is not a true macro, will not give anywhere near the same magnification , go for the sigma you won't regret it , sharp & good IQ
 
Grasshopper said:
Thanks for the advice, I really want to get a macro so I can start shooting but don't want to go for the wrong lens and really did not know where to start. Is the prime that much better than the zooms, I.e. the Sigma 17-70?
Click to expand...

For macro? most certainly. Any zoom that has "macro" in the title will not be true macro, more a close up lens.

But I wouldn't have a macro as my only lens, would be too restrictive. Even though they are excellent portrait lenses too, you lose out on wide angle.

Do you have any other lenses atm?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
For macro? most certainly. Any zoom that has "macro" in the title will not be true macro, more a close up lens.

But I wouldn't have a macro as my only lens, would be too restrictive. Even though they are excellent portrait lenses too, you lose out on wide angle.

Do you have any other lenses atm?
Click to expand...

I have an 18-105 kit lens which I use for my everyday walk about lens. I also have a Sigma 150-500 for wildlife but I neither are any good for macro which is what I really want to get into. Thanks for you help.
 
There's a sigma 150mm macro for sale in the classifieds, much better than the old sigma 105! And you'll get it cheaper if you move in quick.

I just bought the newer version with OS, which is pricey, but the old one will be optically on a par. It's a great focal length for macro.
 
Thank you everyone for your help. I will steer clear of the zooms and stick to looking for a prime. I don't want to waist my money so it's great to know that this is the way to go. I only have a limited budget so think the Nikon 105 is out but if I can find a Sigma 105 for a better price or a Nikon 60mm second hand, hopefully I can get started.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top