Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by mommy22, Apr 1, 2010.
What's your favorite and why. I shoot with Nikon.
I'm hunting around for a new lense.
While I don't shoot Nikon, I'm pretty sure its close to the same as with Canon. I haven't found to many bad reviews when it comes to macro lenses. I personally shoot with the Sigma 105mm 2.8 macro, and it is great. Its cheaper than the Canon lenses (I'm guessing cheaper than Nikon's choices aswell) and great image quality. Find out what focal length you need first and go from there.
Is 100-105mm focal length enough reach for your needs? It all depends how close you can get to your subject without it moving (IE insects/animals). Sometimes having the extra reach of an 180mm macro will help, but it really depends on how close you can get to your subject. If it is inanimate, then you don't have that big of a problem.
Hope that helped,
I shoot with the 70mm macro Sigma EX 2.8. It's very sharp and I chose it b/c I could also use it for portraits given its focal length.
can't beat the Nikor 105 macro with VR ... if you don't mind the approx. $1K price tag ...
Uh, no. I am not willing to spend a grand on a lense.
I will have to check out the Sigma. I'm most interested in shooting flowers and bugs...
Next question, can I shoot macro with my 70-300? I would love a lenses I could do portraits and macro with...
your question is too broad
do you want to use a
reversing coupler? (cheap but hard to use)
extension tube? (several hundred dollars minimum)
screw on filters? (low quality but cheap)
macro lens? (most expensive)
you also need to know how close you want to get. do you want to get to full life size? half? double? the bigger, the most you spend. some macro lenses don't get all the way to life sized even if they say they are macro.
are you willing to buy accessories like a ring flash or a dedicated tripod bracket, etc or are you going hand held? I can tell you that the more you magnify the more flowers move, the quicker bugs get out of frame and the longer it takes per shot. I've actually looked at a flower and it didn't look to be moving but magnified at 1.5x it was twitching in the natural air flow.
as far as having one lens for dual aspects, this is a hard question to answer. a good multi-purpose lens will be expensive, like the one mentioned already.
you might want to give your budget
You can get extension tubes for a few bucks, they are probably the OP's best option for something cheap.
Also something worth noting about macro lenses and macro shooting in general, is that a longer focal length lens (ie 180mm) will allow you get max. magnification from further away, however the depth of field in the shot will be less than that from a shorter focal length lens (ie 60mm). To combat the short depth of field you will have to use really really apertures which is not ideal in terms of sharpness and shutter speed.
Well, I suppose my budget is 600 or less and I know I want a lense, not an add on.
I don't know much about macro. I don't know what type of magnification I need to get the shots I want. I like the types of pics of bugs where you can see their little faces, or the hairs on their legs.
I understand shooting macro is different than regular photography but I want to learn.
So is it better to have a 180mm vs. a 70mm? I don't mind getting close to my subject as long as I can shoot like crazy with a fast shutter speed...
Just the fact that you want to take insect pictures (which is 95% of what I got into macro for myself) says that you need all the focal length you can get so as not to disturb the critter.
I just bought the Sigma 180 3.5 macro for about $600 from Adorama. It's a very good lens from what I've seen so far. I highly recommend you check in to it.
Separate names with a comma.