Which Macro lens?

[finlaw]

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

[Derekb]

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.

[Canis Vulpes]

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?

[miketoll]

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.

[greenbunion]

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

[Christine]

The new Sigma 70 seems to be having excellent reviews.

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by miketoll

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.

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.

[Don Hoey]

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

[andy153]

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.

[walwyn]

Should I mention the Raynox at this point?