Which MICRO? Advise needed.

morpheve

morpheve

Messages
162
Name
Eve
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I would like to buy MICRO lens.

I did a little research but I'm lacking a bit on technical knowledge.

1. What is the difference between these two lenses?
Nikon FX 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro Lens
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro Lens

2. Could you advise me what should I look at, and what to consider while choosing and then buying MICRO lens?

Thanks for all replays and help:)

Ev
 
Here's the biggest tip I can give...

Buy the longest focal length you can afford, the longer the focal length, the more distance you have between yourself and the subject at life size.

40mm will put about an I inch between the front element and the subject, 180mm will give something like 10" between the front element and the subject...

For photographing small things that get scared then distance is really sought after in the macro world.

With distance comes better lighting. As you can imagine, the 40/60mm could give quite a bit of a shadow vs something with a bit more distance on it.
 
These are actually macro lenses. Nikon just use 'Micro' as a product name. Everything else being equal, yes, go for the longer lens. It puts more distance between the subject and the front element, which helps with some subjects, and definitely offers benefits if you're photographing things that can bite and sting!
 
+1 for "as long as you can afford"!

I have the "old" Sigma 150mm f/2.8, the non VR (OS) version. It's hard to find a bad review, if any, and it's relatively cheap... ish.


If you can find one! :D
 
Phil Young said:
Here's the biggest tip I can give...

Buy the longest focal length you can afford, the longer the focal length, the more distance you have between yourself and the subject at life size.

40mm will put about an I inch between the front element and the subject, 180mm will give something like 10" between the front element and the subject...

For photographing small things that get scared then distance is really sought after in the macro world.

With distance comes better lighting. As you can imagine, the 40/60mm could give quite a bit of a shadow vs something with a bit more distance on it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil, you were very helpful:)
:)
 
morpheve said:
It's one of I consider to buy. I just wanted to know the difference between for example 60mm or 105mm. In meaning which would be better and why?
Click to expand...

The main difference (as Phil says) is that you'd have to get closer to the subject with the 60mm than you would with the 105mm. Likewise, you'll have to get closer with a 105mm than you will with (say) a 200mm. Also, the closer you are the more natural light you're likely to block. Then it's a question of how much weight you want to carry, whether you need VR or not (handheld or tripod use), which has better sharpness and how much you want to pay.

Nikon make these macro lenses (I've ignored their PC-E models):

40mm DX
85mm DX
60mm FX
105mm FX
200mm FX

Your D90 has a DX sensor but it can take any of the above lenses (i.e. both DX and FX). I'd go for an FX macro though in case you ever decide to replace the D90 with an FX body. More info on that here http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/The-DX-and-FX-Formats.html

New prices of the Nikon macros can be found here http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Nikon/Nikon-SLR-Lenses.

In addition to their 150mm macro Sigma do a 105mm macro (called the 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro OS HSM) - it has some good reviews and a decent price http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/...-105mm-f2.8-EX-DG-Macro-OS-HSM-Nikon-Fit-Lens.
 
Eve, another candidate would be the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. It'll AF on your D90 in any of its AF guises and is very well regarded. The older ones may be better made than the more modern ones. I only upgraded mine due to rampant GAS and the fact that a friend wanted to buy the Tamron from me! (I now have the Nikkor 105mm VR.) I originally ended up with the Tamron rather than the Sigma 105mm purely due to the fact that the Tamron appeared on a 2nd hand shelf here before a Sigma did.
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
Looks good for tripod use but perhaps a bit heavy if Eve wants to hand-hold it for macro?

Sigma 150mm - 1150g http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/150mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro-2
Sigma 105mm - 725g http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/105mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro
Nikon 105mm - 720g http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...F-S-VR-Micro-Nikkor-105mm-f%2F2.8G-IF-ED.html
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I thought although the 150 does give more working distance its harder to handhold I do have the sigma 150 and prefer the 105 unless im using a tripod
Ive found that a 100mm lens is perfect for insects good working distance and easy to handhold
 
Last edited:
Ozei said:
Looks good for tripod use but perhaps a bit heavy if Eve wants to hand-hold it for macro?

Sigma 150mm - 1150g http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/150mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro-2
Sigma 105mm - 725g http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/105mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro
Nikon 105mm - 720g http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2160/AF-S-VR-Micro-Nikkor-105mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html
Click to expand...

Depends on the usage. If its a dedicated macro, 150 (with monopod). If its a hybrid for portraits etc...105.
 
Phil Young said:
Depends on the usage. If its a dedicated macro, 150 (with monopod). If its a hybrid for portraits etc...105.
Click to expand...

yes agree the 150 works well with a monopod, I find it hard to use handheld :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top