Which Macro lens?
 

Ok I was hoping to get a Macro lens for christmas but the one I've been looking at is way out of my price range also I'm not really sure what features I should be looking for. Can anyone suggest a good lens in around the A$500 to A$700 (up to around 350 GBP) or explain what I need to look for in a Macro Lens. I'm using a Nikon D200.

Thanks

Hi Fiona, the Nikon 105mm is just a lttle more than your budget, but an outstanding lens. However if you want to stay in budget and have some change, I'd go for the Tamron 90mm. It get's great reviews everywhere and is without doubt a great macro lens - in fact I'm going to get one myself after seeing some images a friend showed me.

What about used?

I got a used Nikkor 105mm Micro for approx £400, only a little more than budget. Maybe the used market is different in Australia, even cheaper?

Don't forget the Sigma 105 macro lens either. All the ones mentioned are very good. In general terms a lens that will give you life size i.e. 1:1 and the focal length you need depends on the working distance that suits you best. Many people like about 100mm some like more eg 150mm or so.

I use the Sigma 150mm 2.8 and have been very happy with it.
This daisy was only about 20mm diameter.
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=17

The new Sigma 70 seems to be having excellent reviews.

Another vote for the Sigma 105mm here. Well within your budget and a cracking lens. I find it to be highly addictive and use it in places when I really shouldn't. Is a super sharp lens for non macro work too.

As Mike has mentioned working distance is an important consideration especially if you are intending to shoot flighty subjects.
Working distance will increase with focal length. Also as focal length increases field of view decreases which can be useful for limiting the impact of distracting backgrounds. Example the field of view, or picture angle on the wide side, of the 55mm Micro is 43degrees, the 105mm is 23degrees and the 200mm is 12 degrees.

http://www.jeffree.co.uk/pages/macro-lens-calcs.html

The chart at the bottom of this link gives values for a number of lenses. The chart is split into two sections. The upper section is for 1:1 magnification ( life size at full frame ) and the lower section for 1:2 ( half life size full frame ) Working distances are in the 4th column WD at " R ".

I have the 55mm Ais Micro Nikkor, and if I had my choice of purchase over again then from my experience of changing subject matter I would go for the longest focal length I could afford.

As you have seen quite a number of members favouring Sigma.

If you can handle working in manual focus then it is worth considering a used Ais 105mm or 200mm if you can get one.

Don

Hi Fiona, I got my 105mm AF Micro Nikkor off eBay for about £275. It is not the VR version but the older f2.8. It is a superb lens - very sharp. Choice of lens however depends upon what you are hoping to take pics of. Trecking and looking for butterflies, dragonflies etc I use an 80-200 f2.8mm with a short extension tube and monopod. For flowers etc I use an old 50mm f1.8 with one or two Nikon Magnifying lenses like filters on the front from a tripod - both setups take a ring flash or R1C1 closeup kit. the advantage of the 105 mm for me is that it's the old 52mm Nikkor thread filter - same as 50mm. so filters and closeup lenses fit both. If you can get hold of a good second hand old version 105mm AF micro nikkor however I would recommend that as worth getting and I would forget the VR unless you are doing a lot of hand held stuff.

Should I mention the Raynox at this point?

Ok Thanks guys & Girls, I've got a bit of research to do on your suggestions. Thankyou. I'm not really sure what I'll be photographing but I've always loved getting as much of the little detail as I can so I guess I'm looking for an all rounder. I love the insect shots people post but no that's not going to happen unless they just happen to die in front of me and definately aren't going to move lol!

Walwyn whats the Raynox?

The Raynox is a supplementary lens that clips onto the front of an existing lens:
http://www.bugeyedigital.com/product...ay-dcr250.html

It costs £35 and gives you about 2.5 times magnification with a half way decent zoom. Almost all my macros use it, the one disadvantage is that you do have to work close to the subject, but I've never found that to be a problem. Check out my gallery for examples.

There's a macro lens buyers guide in this months "What Camera?" magazine (a freebie we get at work).
Tests the Canon 60mm, Sigma 70mm, Tokina 100mm and Tamron 90mm.
The Sigma comes out tops for macro, by the narrowest of margins against the Canon.
Interestingly the article hints that the performance of the Tamron is better at wider apertures than stopped down, perhaps suggesting it is a good all rounder for portraiture.

Hi Fiona,
I would look for a macro that focuses internally, ie nikon. I use a sigma 50 2.8 and often find the lens catching petels or grass as it winds out to focus, and moving the subject.Manual focusing Macros are fine, I always man/focus on 1.1 subjects

So after just a few weeks weeks of posting this and starting to write up my dream list, we got some happy baby news that has slashed my allowed budget by around 1/2 (au$500 -$600 0r uk 250 to 300) and have been contemplating the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1. I'm just wondering if any of you have used this lens, what you thought of it and or if you have other suggestions in my price range.

Hi Fiona - seeing your price range - how about the 70mm f2.8 Sigma Macro? On a reduced frame DSLR it works out about 105mm and some reports rate it a one of the sharpest lenses that Sigma do. Price over here is about £200 and their proper 105 goes for £320 on ebay at one UK seller. Best of luck.

I don't think you would be disappointed with any of the lenses mentioned, they are all very good. The Tamron has long been near the top of any revue and although I have never used one I own the original pre EOS version which fits my old Canon FD cameras and it is superb. I think that your expertise will be the most important factor rather than which lens you buy.

the older adaptall2 tamron 90mm f/2.5 version was one of the sharpest lenses they ever made. the later AF 2.8 version not so...it's a different optical design, which didn't get the same acolade the earlier MF version did.
Without going for manufacturers lenses/prices I would agree with Andy in that the Sigma 70mm has certainly received the best vevues.
The 105mm sigma was certainly one of the best macro sellers when I worked in a local camera shop. not the best build quality (check out the Tokinas for that), but certainly one of the best bits of glass from the independant manufacturers

Personal choice but I would prefer the longer focal length of the 105 Sigma which gives around 150-160 35mm equivalent depending on the ''crop factor''. The Tamron is still a good lens even if not up to the original adaptall2 either optically or in build quality. I like my Sigma 105.

Don't waste your time with any of the others, just go for the latest Tamron 90mm Macro, you won't regret it, it leaves the others standing, it's also well within your budget! I've used one for years in it's various re-incarnations and can vouch for the superb results and build quality of the latest model.

nirofo.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm off to do a bit of reaserch on them and then I'll try and get to handle them 1st.

My expertise in Macro is almost non existent apart from with a point and shoot years ago but I keep seeing all these interesting details that I'd love to be able to capture.

Oh I'd also like to use the lens as a portrait lens on occasion would that affect my choice out of the suggested lenses?

Hi Fiona as you are doubling for a portrait lens as well I would recommend the Sigma 70mm even more strongly now. It is one of their best bits of glass for both macro and portrait and its price should make it a front runner for you. EBay Oz sell it for about 500$au ?

It all depends on which focal length you feel is best for portrait work after allowing for the crop factor. The Sigma 70 will give about a 105 which is a nice perspective. The Tamron 90mm about 135mm which is again a nice perspective so both would be excellent. Handle them both if you can in a shop and see which you prefer to work with.

So I went for a touch and feel visit to my fav photo shop and ended up shopping, took a couple of test shots, uploaded to my gallery and thought I'd let you all know what I went for. Andy you will be pleased, yep thats right the Sigma 70mm 2.8.

Heres the link to my 1st effort, not the best subject I know but my back yard is tiny with no flowers. Onwards to tomorrow as we are heading up and out country so I should get some good photo opertunities there.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...00&ppuser=1504

Congratulation Finlaw on your new toy.
Got late to get in and give your a radical thought but you simply can't go wrong with any Bigma. Now its time to close that F stop, light up you subject and enjoy macro world.