nikon macro lens on a budget?

timmygcsc2308

timmygcsc2308

Messages
985
Name
Timmy
Edit My Images
Yes
So..as the title says - this time next week I'll have £150 - £200 to spend, just wondering if there is a lens that can do nice macro work without having to break the bank for Nikon D40?
Was looking at the Sigma 70-300mm APO HSM which has a 1:2 macro and would complement the kit lens pretty well but reading reviews its rather soft after 250mm and the macro is only available after 200mm which seems..pointless :cuckoo:
Either that or I forget the macro for now, save up the requisit £350+ and get a 55-200 VR for now.....
 
I'm not sure why you think close focussing is useless above 200mm, but anyway, to do macro photography cheaply I'd recommend buying some auto extension tubes. They'll still be useful if you eventually buy a proper macro lens.
 
SamHH said:
I'm not sure why you think close focussing is useless above 200mm, but anyway, to do macro photography cheaply I'd recommend buying some auto extension tubes. They'll still be useful if you eventually buy a proper macro lens.
Click to expand...

naa you misunderstand - what I said was the macro on the Sigma is only available after 200mm but after 200-250ish the sigma apparently is soft, meaning that buying this lens as a cheap macro is pointless because all the macro images will always be soft because they have been taken in the 200-300mm range. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ok thanks for the tip - so this is the johnny yes?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenko-Auto-Extension-Nikon-Mount/dp/B000JG88JU

edit:
55-200 + Raynox DCR-250?
Click to expand...

That could work out well - the Raynox is £30..any good though?
 
Last edited:
SamHH said:
I'm not sure why you think close focussing is useless above 200mm
Click to expand...

I don't get that either. I use extension tubes on my 300mm f/4 AF-S, with no problems.

The only thing to watch out for with Nikons, is if you get cheaper MF extension tubes on eBay and the like, you'll need to use lenses that have an aperture ring ("D" lenses).
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
naa you misunderstand - what I said was the macro on the Sigma is only available after 200mm but after 200-250ish the sigma apparently is soft
Click to expand...

Well, generally on macro you're wanting to stop down the lens to try to maximise depth of field, otherwise you can end up with a DOF that's only about 1-2mm, and most of what you're trying to shoot is out of focus.

Stopped down to f/8, f/11, etc. even lower end lenses can be surprisingly sharp.
 
Kaouthia said:
Well, generally on macro you're wanting to stop down the lens to try to maximise depth of field, otherwise you can end up with a DOF that's only about 1-2mm, and most of what you're trying to shoot is out of focus.

Stopped down to f/8, f/11, etc. even lower end lenses can be surprisingly sharp.
Click to expand...

oh right ok - advice muchly appreciated and noted :thumbs: so its a choice between the Nikon 55-200 VR and the raynox thingy, or a Sigma 70-300 APO and using the 200-300 range mainly for macro photography...
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
oh right ok - advice muchly appreciated and noted :thumbs: so its a choice between the Nikon 55-200 VR and the raynox thingy, or a Sigma 70-300 APO and using the 200-300 range mainly for macro photography...
Click to expand...

Honestly I wouldn't really say that the sigma would make for proper macro, the "macro" functions are really just relatively close focusing, and the Nikon would be able to do that just as well I'd bet. For the record, I've used both and the sigma was pretty soft compared to the Nikon, also the Nikon would retain more of its original value if you decide to move on up and get a "proper" macro.
 
SamuelHearn said:
Honestly I wouldn't really say that the sigma would make for proper macro, the "macro" functions are really just relatively close focusing, and the Nikon would be able to do that just as well I'd bet. For the record, I've used both and the sigma was pretty soft compared to the Nikon, also the Nikon would retain more of its original value if you decide to move on up and get a "proper" macro.
Click to expand...

ok thats reassuring to hear you've used both. Probably will look at the Nikon and the Raynox jobbie then :thumbs:
 
£200 might be enough to get you a 2nd hand tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro or a sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro - these are proper 1:1 macro lens.
 
hmmm yes the Simga 50mm f/2.8 Macro is £205 brand new as well
 
I had a manual focus Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, very nice it was too.
 
Kaouthia said:
I had a manual focus Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, very nice it was too.
Click to expand...

hmm yes..it's just a shame it won't auto focus on a D40 :( would make a nice general purpose prime too :(
 
Well, a manual focus lens won't AF on anything, but I always manual focus my macro stuff anyway even with AF lenses.
 
Kaouthia said:
Well, a manual focus lens won't AF on anything, but I always manual focus my macro stuff anyway even with AF lenses.
Click to expand...

well no but on a D90/D300/D80/D70 etc. etc. it would AF with the screw system (correct me if I'm wrong) but it doesn't have a built in motor for AF with a D40, and so I've been reading manual focusing with macro is the way to do it, but if it AF'd with my body it would make a decent carry around prime for portraits and such
 
Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AI-S - I recommended this to a chap who sits next to me at work, and he loves it. Uses it on a D90 - all manual off course.

Bargain for under £80.
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
well no but on a D90/D300/D80/D70 etc. etc. it would AF with the screw system (correct me if I'm wrong)
Click to expand...

No, manual focus lenses don't AF with anything, that's why they're called manual focus lenses. :)

An autofocus lens that doesn't have a built in motor though, yes, those will only focus with bodies that have an AF motor (like the D100/200/300/70/80/90/etc).
 
Kaouthia said:
No, manual focus lenses don't AF with anything, that's why they're called manual focus lenses. :)

An autofocus lens that doesn't have a built in motor though, yes, those will only focus with bodies that have an AF motor (like the D100/200/300/70/80/90/etc).
Click to expand...

I thought the 50mm Sigma macro was an AF lens? this one?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-sigma
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/299-sigma-af-50mm-f28-ex-macro-dg-test-report--review

The AF speed is okayish but there're faster focusing lenses out there. There's a focus limiter which may help to avoid excessive hunting towards the macro universe when using the lens at conventional focus distances
Click to expand...
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
I thought the 50mm Sigma macro was an AF lens? this one?
Click to expand...

There's a manual focus Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro as well. I'm not sure if they're still in production, but I bought one brand new about 4 years ago. :)
 
Kaouthia said:
There's a manual focus Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro as well. I'm not sure if they're still in production, but I bought one brand new about 4 years ago. :)
Click to expand...

ahh right ok, yea I was thinkin the one I linked above.
Well for now I'm going to just get the 55-200 and the funky raynox thing. Thanks for all the help :thumbs:
 
I've just been looking through the thread in the macro forum at the photos taken with the Raynox DCR-250 and they are stunning. Something else to put on my list now. What is the difference between this and the 150 though?
 
Pezza4u said:
I've just been looking through the thread in the macro forum at the photos taken with the Raynox DCR-250 and they are stunning. Something else to put on my list now. What is the difference between this and the 150 though?
Click to expand...

Magnification.. 150= 4.8, 250= 8
 
tamron 90mm f/2.8 (1:1) macro, newest model with built in AF motor for Nikon..99% considering this purchase after budget has risen a bit. Good idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top