Don't know what macro lens to get

nerwin

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
3,784
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Vermont
Website
nickerwin.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Alright..macro lenses. I don't know what to get. For as long as I've owned a DSLR, I've always wanted a macro lens and I think its time to buy one!

There are lots of excellent macro lenses available and therefore I'm asking what lenses you use/prefer and why? As of right now, I'm interested in the Nikkor 105 2.8G VR because of the extra reach for working distance and doubles as a portrait lens when needed, but I find the bokeh kind of ugly when I looked up portraits taken with the 105G.

I've considered the Tamron 90 2.8 VC, Tokina 100 2.8 and heck, even the old but goodie 55 2.8 AIS. I also like Nikon's 60 2.8G..but just afraid the work distance will be rather short on FX.

I know a lot of people use macro lenses for taking pictures of bugs and what not..I'm not a huge fan of bugs except for the occasional monarch butterfly and bumble bee. I'm more interested in taking really detailed macro shots of nature type things. I live in Vermont, so I'm surround by beautiful nature. I also go to a LOT of car shows (I'm a big car guy) and there are a lot of fine details that I just can't capture with a normal lens.

Also when the day comes when I decide to try shooting portraits, I think the 105 2.8G would be a great lens..but like I mentioned above..I find the bokeh slightly ugly..it just looks more of a oval vs round like I'm use to.
 
Hi, I have and love the "Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM DG Macro 1:1". It's very sharp, with great bokeh for portraits as well. And together with the Kenko Extension Tubes, it goes beyond 1:1 macro, which is great. Here some samples:
Sigma 105mm f 2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro 1 1 - an album on Flickr

For live subjects, the longer the focal length the better, for macro (105-150mm). That's to be able to be further way, to avoid scaring the live subject. For inanimate subjects, that doesn't matter.

I recommend the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 above, the one I use, but other good options are the Sigma 150mm f/2.8, the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8, the Tokina 105mm f/2.8, and the Tamron 90mm f/2.8.

Read this multiple pages article:
Best macro lens for Nikons 8 tested Cameras News TechRadar

Check DxOMark as well, if needed.
 
I always suggest buying a macro lens from the used market, since they are a lens type often bought, tried, then shelved, then traded in or sold to resellers. I dunno...I've owned 55mm, 60mm,90mm,100mm,and 180mm macro lenses over the past three decades, and each class has its benefits and best uses. The 55 and 60mm lenses are very good for flat artwork and documents (paintings, posters, artwork) nd are also useful for plants and smaller "scene close-up" work, where you need a lens that's very sharp at close ranges, and which has low distortion and which has a moderate angle of view, to be able to get enough into the shot at closer ranges from say 6 inches to 15 feet.

90,100,105mm are pretty handy lenses, and affordable. Tamron's 90 is one I own, and it has nice bokeh, and is a good lens. I've read the Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X is a solid lens too. There are a few manual focus, older Nikon models, as well as the 105 AF model, and the new AF-S VR-G model 105mm.

180mm, like the older Sigma f/3.5 APO, is really nice for some things, since the longer focal length gives a life-sized or 1:1 image from about 18 inches, which beats the heck out of needing to have the subject RIGHT in front of the freakin' lens filter threads with something like the 55mm or 60mm macro lenses.

I think for cars at car show events, I'd go for the Tamron 90mm, for the bokeh, and the focal length it has. It would be really good for detail shots of things like brand badges, chrome details, smaller stuff like that. sigma has made a very nice 105mm EX for a number of years.
 
After looking at hundreds of photos from each lenses..overall the Nikon 105 2.8G still seems to be best and also has the best resale value too.

I always suggest buying a macro lens from the used market, since they are a lens type often bought, tried, then shelved, then traded in or sold to resellers.

I agree, which is why I planned on buying the Nikon 105G used rather than new. If I go third party..I'd probably buy new..but depends. I bought most of my Nikon lenses used, haha. I don't see anything wrong with it.
 
nerwin said:
After looking at hundreds of photos from each lenses..overall the Nikon 105 2.8G still seems to be best>SNIP>

I think what you are seeing is the "new Nikkor look"...the 105 VR tends to have exceptionally rich color saturation--MUCH more noticeable than many older lens designs, from most manufacturers. It's a sort of almost hyperrealistic color saturation, one that some people like, and which others do not. This is something that, typically, only very experienced lens reviewers will comment on when they report their field shooting results. I myself am not used to this type of hyperrealistic look...to me it looks a bit "juiced". I **do** know what you mean..the 105 VR macro does produce very rich, vivid color.

A number of older lenses produce more natural color, and some lenses produce more-muted color than other, better designs do. Not all lenses create images that look identical. I've seen this tendency toward greater color saturation in the new G-series 60 micro and 105 micro model,and I think the 105 tends to have higher microcontrast than some other lenses, so there's more feeling of SNAP! in its rendering of scenes.

A really good example would be the color produced by the 85mm f/2 Ai or Ai-S lenses, and them comparing that to the new 85/1.8 AF-S G; the older lens models are much more subtle, much softer and more delicate in their overall image rendering. The "new Nikkor" look agrees with a lot of people. I think it might be what the general public likes and wants, more so than the more-muted look of older designs.
 
I suppose you are probably right, I'm use to the Nikkor look. Haha.

I wanna change my answer though. I'm really digging the Sigma 105 2.8 OS HSM. I guess I'm between the Nikkor 105 and Sigma 105. I'm sure the Tamron 90mm is excellent..but I really prefer the 105mm focal length. The Tokina is nice too..but I don't care for the focus clutch system..I like instant manual override.

The only problem I can find with the Sigma is that fact that it doesn't have any weather sealing. The Nikkor 105G does have pretty good weather sealing as well as the Tamron. So I might just be better off to get the Nikkor, ugh.
 
Last edited:
Nerwin, I've read reports (and there are discussions out there, even here in this forum) that the Nikkor 105 2.8G macro has a hard bokeh for portraits, despite being an amazing macro lens. Research about it, if you really want to use it for portraits as well. The Sigma 105 2.8 OS HSM has great bokeh, and is the sharpest for macro, even at very high f/#, managing diffraction really well. Good look. Two great lenses.
 
Nerwin, I've read reports (and there are discussions out there, even here in this forum) that the Nikkor 105 2.8G macro has a hard bokeh for portraits, despite being an amazing macro lens. Research about it, if you really want to use it for portraits as well. The Sigma 105 2.8 OS HSM has great bokeh, and is the sharpest for macro, even at very high f/#, managing diffraction really well. Good look. Two great lenses.

I don't know what I want to do. The Sigma is really nice, but lacks weather sealing. The Tamron is very close the Nikkor 105 in terms of sharpness..but has much better bokeh for portraits and its also weather sealed too. With the money being saved, I could pick up some extension tubes and get even further magnification. I have to make a compromise somewhere!
 
Ask yourself honestly how many times you're out in heavy rain or bad weather with your gear.

Because chances are if you are then you've already got something like a Rain-sleeve (OPTech ones are something like $5 for two) to slip over or a more heavy duty rain protection setup.
 
Ask yourself honestly how many times you're out in heavy rain or bad weather with your gear.

Because chances are if you are then you've already got something like a Rain-sleeve (OPTech ones are something like $5 for two) to slip over or a more heavy duty rain protection setup.

Not often I guess. I'd think the Sigma would be better sealed than my old Tokina 12-24.
 
One small thing I overlooked earlier what the comment that a macro lens "doubles as a portrait lens"; that's said a lot, but my experience is that almost all macro lenses I've owned have been TERRIBLE, as in TERRIBLE lenses for people work. Why? Focusing problems, in either manual focus, or AF focus modes. Lots and lots and lots of misfocused images at typical portrait ranges, as well as ample opportunities to blow the focus on longer-range landscape and scenic type shots, whatever it might be, at distances beyond about three feet, almost all modern macro lenses have hair-trigger focusing problems. The slightest mis-placement of the active AF area, and boom! Most macros I've used will miss the focus by enough that the images are not usable.

Macro lenses tend to be a real PITA to focus on a person's face at normal portrait distances, with a 15 to 20% focus error actually well within the realm of disappointing performance. Last time I tried using the 60mm AF-D MICro Nikkor + D3x combo for an indoor portrait session, I got about 20% missed focus. Pretty danged disappointing--especially since I KNEW better!!!!
 
One small thing I overlooked earlier what the commen that a macro lens "doubles as a portrait lens"; that's said a lot, but my experience is that almost all macro lenses I've owned have been TERRIBLE, as in TERRIBLE lenses for people work. Why? Focusing problems, in either manual focus, or AF focus modes. Lots and lots and lots of misfocused images at typical portrait ranges, as well as ample opportunities to blow the focus on longer-range landscape and scenic type shots, whatever it might be, at distances beyond about three feet, almost all modern macro lenses have hair-trigger focusing problems. The slightest mis-placement of the active AF area, and boom! Most macros I've used will miss the focus by enough that the images are not usable.

So basically I should just get the Tamron 90 2.8 VC for macro/close up work and grab a used 105 2.5 AIS for portraits? Haha. With the money saved by getting the tamron, I could.
 
As you know, I use the 105mm VR for portraits. Have done for a long time now. Very sharp lens. Focus has always been spot on with the D800. I hated it on the D90. Very slow to focus and often I found it hunting. Definitely a different beast altogether on the D800. Never really had any issues with the bokeh, although I tend to use it in studio and therefore have complete control over all lighting and backdrops.

Just to throw a complete curve ball here but, have you considered saving up for a Tamron 70-200mm VC and using Kenko extension tubes to shorten working distance and increase magnification for macro work??
 
As you know, I use the 105mm VR for portraits. Have done for a long time now. Very sharp lens. Focus has always been spot on with the D800. I hated it on the D90. Very slow to focus and often I found it hunting. Definitely a different beast altogether on the D800. Never really had any issues with the bokeh, although I tend to use it in studio and therefore have complete control over all lighting and backdrops.

Just to throw a complete curve ball here but, have you considered saving up for a Tamron 70-200mm VC and using Kenko extension tubes to shorten working distance and increase magnification for macro work??

Interesting thought on the Tamron 70-200. With the extension tubes, would it be 1:1 ratio?

The only problem with this, is the weight and size. I know people love their 24-70's and 70-200's..but they are big and heavy! I may work out and have some muscles..but I don't find it comfortable carrying heavy lenses around hours upon hours. haha. In my opinion of course.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top