nikon 90mm marco good enough?

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
im looking to sell my 18-50 and 80-200 zooms and im buying primes.
i have a 50mm and im ordering the 24mm 2.8D but i want a good macro lens.

I have been using the 50mm with a raynox adapter on the end which gives good results getting up close.
How much different would the 90mm be to use? would i be just as close but be zooming in further on the object? or would i have to stand further back and be getting basically the same picture?

There are other options around that price but i figured the 90mm would be a good choice or is there better?

I LOVE pictures of flies eyes and other shots zoomed right in.
 
Nikon dont make a 90mm macro, its 105mm, but to answer the qusetion. The macro is the same, eg 1:1. the longer the focal length, the further away you need to be.
My macro is 150mm, so I can stand quite a way back from the subject, but still get 1:1 macro. This is ideal for bugs, as you dont spook them.
With a smaller focal length, you need to be right on top of it.

No idea how the 105mm compares to a 50mm and a raynox, But I imagine the 105mm will be longer, but not neccesarilly much closer.
 
ah sorry i meant the tamron 90mm. I've looked at so many today ive confused myself.
So with a longer focal length such as the 105 i could be the same distance as the 90mm but zoom in even closer?

Maybe i should look at something with more reach then that still has a close minimum focussing distance...
 
evilonion said:
ah sorry i meant the tamron 90mm. I've looked at so many today ive confused myself.
So with a longer focal length such as the 105 i could be the same distance as the 90mm but zoom in even closer?

Maybe i should look at something with more reach then that still has a close minimum focussing distance...
Click to expand...

No, all common macros are 1:1 magnification. The focal length simply means you are physically further away to get that 1:1. If you stood next to someone with a 150 macro and you had a 90, to both get 1:1 mag, the person with the 150 would be stood a foot or more behind you. If he moved closer, he wouldn't get a closer photo, the lens just wouldn't focus any closer. Nikon don't make an out of the box macro that goes any closer, for that, you need the canon mpe lens at 5:1.
 
ah ok so for more magnification i would have to look at getting tubes or using the raynox then...
I may go with the 90mm macro from tamron, seems to have good reviews for the price.
 
TCR4x4 said:
No, all common macros are 1:1 magnification. The focal length simply means you are physically further away to get that 1:1. If you stood next to someone with a 150 macro and you had a 90, to both get 1:1 mag, the person with the 150 would be stood a foot or more behind you. If he moved closer, he wouldn't get a closer photo, the lens just wouldn't focus any closer. Nikon don't make an out of the box macro that goes any closer, for that, you need the canon mpe lens at 5:1.
Click to expand...

You could use a macro lens and tubes or the Raynox for a little extra magnification.
The tamron is good, although the build quality isn't the best, and the clutch system for the AF/MF can be infuriating.
Pretty much all macro lenses are optically brilliant.
 
i was thinking about the 180mm to start with but if i have to be half a mile away from the subject to take the picture that would make it quite awkward to work with. I like being up close :)
 
evilonion said:
i was thinking about the 180mm to start with but if i have to be half a mile away from the subject to take the picture that would make it quite awkward to work with. I like being up close :)
Click to expand...

I'd stick with a 90,105 or 150, especially on a crop camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top