size of lens

Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#1
Just a quick question, i have the following lens

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm F/3.5-6.3G ED VR Wide Angle & Telephoto Lens

That is my default lens now, camera came with a 18-55mm VR Lens (D5600 )

So straight away i can see the new lens goes behond the 55mm to 300mm and im thinking thats the zoom function. But when it comes to close up macro work they are both the same?

Which leads me to wonder why the Nixon 105mm macro lens is better than my lens for very close up shots.

Im thinking my 18 to 300 will already do that 105mm?

So why would i pay over £800 for a 105mm lens

£821
Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED Micro
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,556
Name
Ned
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
Your lens is telephoto, that doesn’t mean you can focus on things close to you, which is what a macro lens does.

When you get down to macro level you are trying to get very close to the subject to increase the magnification, your lens can’t do this.
 
Messages
1,070
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
The 18-300 is a compromise lens. Good at most focal lengths, but excellent at none. It does have a trick though, that it covers all those focal lengths in one package.

If you paid £800 for the 105mm and then compared shots at 105mm with both lenses you’d find the quality difference to very, very marked. Also the 105mm is capable of more than the other one, (at 105mm) lower light, smaller dof and closer focus.

It’s horses for courses.
 
Last edited:

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
22,955
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#5
In what other area of technology would an inexpensive general purpose ‘thing’ outperform a specialist expensive ‘thing’?

The 105 macro is designed to do one job, which it does brilliantly, it’ll also (due to its focal length) be suitable for using as a short telephoto lens making it useful for portraits.
And as it’s a macro lens it’s designed with great ‘flat field’ properties meaning it’s also useful for copy work.

As a ‘specIalist’ lens it’ll do 3 things better than your superzoom, which (as everyone told you before you bought it) only has ‘versatility’ going for it, and is really a 3rd rate lens for everything.
 
Messages
241
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
The 105 macro is designed to do one job, which it does brilliantly, it’ll also (due to its focal length) be suitable for using as a short telephoto lens making it useful for portraits.
Good, because I've just ordered a used one, which will be my first macro lens.
 
Messages
11,572
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#15
As said, the 18-300 is a general purpose lens, capable of making tolerable images in a wide range of scenarios, but never being very sharp, distorting the image at both ends, making a mess of out of focus areas and letting relatively little light through compared to that macro lens. It's like a set of mole grips compared to a precision socket set.
 
Messages
3,024
Name
Dominic
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
A true 1:1 60mm macro will produce a 1" subject on the sensor, the same way a 105mm, 150mm or 200mm macro lens will (in simple terms). The difference is the working distance and field of view (how far away the sensor is from the subject).
Watch this video from 19min 51seconds to see what I mean
View: https://youtu.be/Nf1woH6JOxY


And watch the beginning of this video
View: https://youtu.be/YJG62Zs9vGE
 

TCR4x4

Wishes he had a couple more Inches
Messages
7,972
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
105mm is the focal length, not the focal distance. A macro lens will focus down to a few cms(meaning the lens can be a few cms from the subject) Your lens is probably a few feet at 105mm.
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#19
In what other area of technology would an inexpensive general purpose ‘thing’ outperform a specialist expensive ‘thing’?

The 105 macro is designed to do one job, which it does brilliantly, it’ll also (due to its focal length) be suitable for using as a short telephoto lens making it useful for portraits.
And as it’s a macro lens it’s designed with great ‘flat field’ properties meaning it’s also useful for copy work.

As a ‘specIalist’ lens it’ll do 3 things better than your superzoom, which (as everyone told you before you bought it) only has ‘versatility’ going for it, and is really a 3rd rate lens for everything.
dont know what your problem is, i bought this lens as a general purpose lens, NOT to be special in anything, it was better than the default 18 - 55 no other reason, so its in use for everything, so now im looking at more special lenses for one purpose, I already decided the P1000 would be my telephoto, so now I want a special macro lens, I already know it will be better, but £800 worth better?
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#20
Right, spent some time reading up reviews, Probably prefer the Nikon, but wonder if anybody has any coment

Tamron 90 mm F2.8 VC USD Lens for Nikon DSLR Camera
£579

Or
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens for Nikon DSLR Camera
£329

Finally the Nikon
Nikon AF-S VR MICRO-NIKKOR 105MM F/2.8G IF-ED - camera lenses (Macro, SLR, 14/12, Nikon F, 1x, Nikon SLR)
£821

All Amazon, but will checkout John Lewis and Nikon before buying

Thanks, appreciate any comments on these lenses
 

Attachments

Messages
11,572
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#21
John - FWIW toggers tend to be blunt & a bit snarky over the internet (usually nice face-to-face). In this situation 'most' people would do their research, either studying books or looking at their equipment to understand what makes a macro lens special compared to a superzoom. You've also pushed back when it's been suggested that you learn the craft and tend to ignore advice given, instead asking questions that an evening with a basic photography book or 30min on youtube might have answered for you.

It's great to ask questions, but I'm sure you can understand why people are being a little cooler toward you than they first were.
 
Messages
11,572
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#23
Right, spent some time reading up reviews, Probably prefer the Nikon, but wonder if anybody has any coment

Tamron 90 mm F2.8 VC USD Lens for Nikon DSLR Camera
£579

Or
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens for Nikon DSLR Camera
£329

Finally the Nikon
Nikon AF-S VR MICRO-NIKKOR 105MM F/2.8G IF-ED - camera lenses (Macro, SLR, 14/12, Nikon F, 1x, Nikon SLR)
£821

All Amazon, but will checkout John Lewis and Nikon before buying

Thanks, appreciate any comments on these lenses
Posted as I did. Well done for researching.

They're all good - what do you want to photograph?
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#24
John - FWIW toggers tend to be blunt & a bit snarky over the internet (usually nice face-to-face). In this situation 'most' people would do their research, either studying books or looking at their equipment to understand what makes a macro lens special compared to a superzoom. You've also pushed back when it's been suggested that you learn the craft and tend to ignore advice given, instead asking questions that an evening with a basic photography book or 30min on youtube might have answered for you.

It's great to ask questions, but I'm sure you can understand why people are being a little cooler toward you than they first were.
I dont force anybody to reply do I, Im taking the shortcut by asking before I buy, I wont spend days/weeks looking, lifes to short... well it is for me
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#25
Posted as I did. Well done for researching.

They're all good - what do you want to photograph?
Ok so you dont know.. thats fine

What is the point of this forum if your sending people to youtube, or go read a book ? Problem is with long time forums, people get fed up of same questions
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#26
Edit, sorry too quick tonight, thought you asked if I wanted a photograph :) I want to be able to take a photo of most things very close and clear, like a flower, bug, anything really
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#27
Far too many review sites, all getting things for free, nobody saying the same thing. Visit one site Tamron best thing since sliced bread, next site its a Nikon. Cant say its helping much, Amazon people are good, get some example shots sometimes, people using the lens is great
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#29
So how was the lens, ill take a look now, is it better than anything you already had? Once I have a macro lens and a P1000 I think im all set, can get on with life then :)

was all those photos taken with that lens, or only macro?
 
Last edited:
Messages
11,572
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#30
All 3 are good.

TBH I'd probably buy the Sigma because it's less expensive and entirely good for amateur use. If you were working professionally and using the lens year-in year-out then perhaps get the Nikon. Tamron have a long history of making excellent macro lenses, and this may be a little more expensive for that reason. Functionally I'd be surprised if you could tell the difference either in use or from the images afterward. A user review I checked mentioned that the sigma was a little heavier than a Tamron of similar focal length they already owned.

For real life examples do a Flickr search e.g.: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro

If the images you see there look good then you know that's what can be acheived with the lens you're interested in.
 
Messages
1,405
Edit My Images
No
#31
Response about Tamron

"It’s compatible with the d5300 so I’d imagine so, obviously there’s the crop factor to consider, but that just gives you more reach, I took these with it if it’s any help, https://www.flickr.com/photos/169280037@N06/albums/72157706325622954"
Here's how it works. Any of the three macro lenses will give you 1:1 magnification. That means the image on the sensor, if you focus as close as the minimum distance the lens allows, will be the same size as the thing you are photographing. Imagine you want to take a photo of a 5p coin, which has a diameter of 18mm. The Nikon DX sensor is 24mm x 16mm, so if you go as close as you can then (in landscape format) the top and bottom of the coin will be cut off slightly in your frame (you don't have to go this close, of course). With a 36 x 24mm FX sensor, you'd have space all around the coin in your frame at the minimum focus distance (maximum magnification), though of course you could crop further in an image editor. To get an idea of what a macro lens will do for you, take one of your existing lenses and see how close you can get. Probably that coin will take up only a small proportion of the frame at the minimum focus distance even with an FX sensor, and you'd have to crop and zoom quite a lot in an image editor to get the same effect (with loss of pixels and quality). On the other hand, you might not want to shoot things this small, or get this close. Only buy a new lens when you aren't satisifed with what your existing lenses can do.

Like Toni, I might well get the Sigma if I were buying new, as the price is very reasonable and the reviews are good, but like Andrew I tend to prefer buying secondhand Nikon lenses.
 
Last edited:

Phil V

Suspended / Banned
Messages
22,955
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#34
dont know what your problem is, i bought this lens as a general purpose lens, NOT to be special in anything, it was better than the default 18 - 55 no other reason, so its in use for everything, so now im looking at more special lenses for one purpose, I already decided the P1000 would be my telephoto, so now I want a special macro lens, I already know it will be better, but £800 worth better?
Anyways...
£800 better?
Is a financial decision we can’t answer, it’s a ‘what’s it worth to you?’ question.
If you want a specialist macro lens, by far the best bang for your buck is a Tamron 90mm second hand (which IIRC was the first recommendation by someone else in this thread).
I shoot about a dozen macro shots a year, and the cost of the Tamron was about right for me, it’s a stellar lens, whilst not being ‘the best’.
Apologies for the misunderstanding, I really am trying to help you see things from a ‘photographer’ viewpoint, all newbies come in with a false sense of proportion, and the more mature ones tend to be more entrenched.
You don’t know what you don’t know, and it’s not helped by you being a confident technical person who thinks they ought to be able to work it out.
 
Messages
19,996
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#36
I've tried to read the whole thread but I might have missed something as I haven't spotted what the OP wants to photograph with a macro lens. If it's bugs or anything else that might fly or run away then I suppose the longer the macro the better to increase the working distance, maybe... Longer lenses can also give you a different perspective, for example I've had 50, 100 and 150mm macros on MFT, APS-C and FF cameras and each give a different look.

So, when selecting a macro I'd start by thinking about the subject I wanted to shoot, how I was going to shoot and if the working distance is an issue or not and also if perspective is an issue or if I didn't care. Also do I want to use the lens for anything else and if so will these other uses influence my lens choice?

I had a 150mm macro and I liked the working distance and perspective but on the downside it was big and heavy and when used as a portrait lens it was fine for tight shots but I had to be a bus ride away from my subject to get anything like a full body shot when using an APS-C camera.

These days I have a 50mm macro which gives me a 100mm equivalent field of view on my MFT cameras and a 50mm field of view on my FF camera both of which are ok for copying stuff and for pictures of flowers and leaves etc. I do miss the perspective that the 150mm gave though.

By the way, if fast focus isn't required you can save quite a bit by buying a manual focus macro lens possibly from the film era. The 50mm I have at the moment is a film era lens and although I can't really fault it optically is only cost about £60.

Good luck choosing John but with these lenses I don't think you can make a bad decision as they all seem to be pretty excellent.
 
Messages
1,211
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
I haven’t tried the others but for a day here and there the sigma 105 is very competent and I’m extremely happy with it, my bag consists of Nikon 70-200 and sigma 105, find it very sharp out and about as a ‘normal’ lens, does a good job on portrait stuff and tack sharp for macro. Below my first attempts all with sigma 105

https://www.flickr.com/gp/94737641@N02/U38873
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#38
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#39
I haven’t tried the others but for a day here and there the sigma 105 is very competent and I’m extremely happy with it, my bag consists of Nikon 70-200 and sigma 105, find it very sharp out and about as a ‘normal’ lens, does a good job on portrait stuff and tack sharp for macro. Below my first attempts all with sigma 105

https://www.flickr.com/gp/94737641@N02/U38873
Very high quality photos, very professional, if i can switch to auto point and shoot something like that id be over the moon
 
OP
OP
KingJohn
Messages
68
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
#40
Thank you so much.. woof woof excellent information.

First, cost does not come into it really, in so far as if its worth it then id buy it.

Second, I will only use this macro lens for very close up photos, bugs, butterflies, especially flowers. I wont want to use the lense for anything other than macro. I can now add water drops to something i want to photo (thanks)

I want the best out of those 3 lenses, ive spent some time looking at what everyones been talking about.

Perhaps the difficulty could be newer lense which nobody has tested.

Someone said the tamron didnt have a motor? If thats a fault? Then perhaps the Nikon would be the best, i guess they made the camera so perhaps i should only buy the Nikon.

But again, if the tamron will be just as good why pay twice the price for a Nikon.

I know Nikon parts are silly price, a sun shade on Ebay was £3 the original was over £47, other than a name printed on it, quality is fine, can reverse it and attach when storing.

Third, i dont buy second hand products, must be new with a warantee, i can also return it within 30 days if its not what i wanted. Im retired.. no nonger working.. dont need to watch the pennies. Hope this isnt going to annoy some people, but ive worked hard all my life. Time to make a bucket list.

So right now the Tamron looks like it would be a great lense to buy.

Someone with a Nikon tell me its better than the tamron?

Thanks, it will take me a while to read this thread again, go investigating and read again, before buying anything.

The good news is the xyl has a present for her birthday so can plan on buying this macro lens

Ice maker, cold water dispenser
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top