Don't know what macro lens to get

[AKUK]

With all 3 tubes stacked, it's probably pretty close at 200mm. Certainly will give you longer working distances and of course the added bonus that it's a 70-200mm for portraiture. Granted the weight may be an issue if you're not tripod mounted.

 

[jaomul]

I have the Tamron vc a couple of weeks now. I am liking it for macro and have got a few good enough people shots also. I am not going to recommend this one over any other just because I have it, but I have read it described as the "portrait macro" lens. To be honest I have had a sigma 105 in the past and a canon 100mm also (both on canon, neither with stabisization), and I don't think their is a bad macro.

You could probably pick up a Tamron or sigma and a Nikon 85mm , getting the right tool for both jobs,for not much more than a nikon macro, especially if you went secondhand. I would however suggest buying the macro first and seeing yourself if its good enough for portraits for your needs, rather than finding out after you've shelled out for two lenses, that one would have done the trick

 

[nerwin]

With all 3 tubes stacked, it's probably pretty close at 200mm. Certainly will give you longer working distances and of course the added bonus that it's a 70-200mm for portraiture. Granted the weight may be an issue if you're not tripod mounted.

Honestly, if I were to buy a 70-200 2.8, I'd get the Nikon 70-200 2.8 no questions asked. But at that price and being I don't do photography professionally..so I just don't see the point in owning one right now. Maybe someday.

Its not like I need 1:1, its just nice to have. I've considered getting the 60mm 2.8G because I just want it for general macro photography..its not like I'm going to have a studio with all kinds of lighting. If I was to get a 60mm macro...I probably wouldn't use my 50 1.8G that often I'd bet..but I think the 50 1.8G can blow out the background much better.

I have the Tamron vc a couple of weeks now. I am liking it for macro and have got a few good enough people shots also. I am not going to recommend this one over any other just because I have it, but I have read it described as the "portrait macro" lens. To be honest I have had a sigma 105 in the past and a canon 100mm also (both on canon, neither with stabisization), and I don't think their is a bad macro.

You could probably pick up a Tamron or sigma and a Nikon 85mm , getting the right tool for both jobs,for not much more than a nikon macro, especially if you went secondhand. I would however suggest buying the macro first and seeing yourself if its good enough for portraits for your needs, rather than finding out after you've shelled out for two lenses, that one would have done the trick

I think I've had more suggestions for the Tamron 90mm VC than any other macro lens. Must be a reason. I think for my needs..it will work great. Owning both a 90mm and 85mm would seem redundant..but afterall they are two different lenses for two different jobs.

 

[Parker219]

If you decide to go with the tokina, I am thinking about selling mine, I see its new for $379, mine is a year old, used maybe 10 times. I was thinking $279?



I took this photo with the lens...

And this...


Quick-Bee by linktheworld219, on Flickr




Tokina AT-X 100mm f 2.8 PRO D Macro Lens for Nikon AF Digital and Film Cameras Amazon Camera Photo

 

[Overread]

A thought on extension tubes:

The rough maths for extension tubes is: (Length of extension tubes in mm as stated on teh tubes - divided by - focal length of the lens) + lens native magnification = magnification :1

For example a 50mm lens on 100mm of extension tubes would be
(100/50) = 2:1

Note in this example I've counted the lens's native magnification as 0; this is because for any lens that isn't a macro lens the magnification is normally small. As such whilst it does have a real-world effect it isn't typically as much as you are getting from the use of the tubes (hence why a lot of crude calculations ignore the lens native magnification).

So on a 70-200mm with a full set of extension tubes (normally around 65mm) you will get only just under 1:1 at the 70mm end (probably close enough to 1:1 when adding lens native magnification) and only 0.3:1 at the 200mm end (plus lens native - though still nowhere near 1:1 of true macro)



Extension tubes this give the greatest gain on shorter focal length lenses; remembering that if you add to much extension you can move to such a point where the point of focus moves inside the lens itself. Thus rendering the lens incapable of ever achieving focus. They have a place for macro then in short focal length lenses; whilst on longer ones they can do respectable close-up work. On supertelephoto lenses (eg 500mm f4) you can have min-focusing distances into meters; as such tubes also work well in hides that are close to small subjects (eg bird feeder) with these lenses. (so not totally restricted to macro use).


If you want to use a longer lens then you can get a diopter/macro filter/macro lens attachment (last name is their proper one; but others are used in general conversation). These work the same as extension tubes; but with glass and go on the front of the lens like a filter. The higher their diopter rating the more magnification they give (ergo the closer you get) and they also give more magnification on longer focal length lenses. Raynox produce a range of high quality options and Canon also produces a few. Note these come in two forms;

1) Super cheap options which are oft sold as a set - typically they don't go for much and are utterly low grade glass. They work, but poorly. They are also the kind most people encounter and thus have a generally poor reputation as a result.

2) More expensive (still cheaper than a lens) and high grade multi-element and coated glass. A whole different ballgame as these are high grade and have almost no image quality problems (indeed their image quality is akin to that when using tubes in many cases).

 

[Derrel]

The Canon 500D is a high-quality, two-element close-up lens that is readily available in 77mm diameter filter fit, for use on all brands of 70-200 or 80-200mm zoom lenses. I have one, and it is a very good close-up filter, one I would actually recommend. This is NOT one of the the cheap, $25 rubbish + diopter filter sets sold in the 1970's and 1980's in a small leather case with three strengths of + diopter filters. The Raynox company also makes some good quality, two-element devices of this type. These are the option 2 choice overread is mentioning in his post above.

In the 62mm diameter size, I also own the superb Nikon 6T (six- "tee") two-element close-up lens. The 6T works wonderfully when mounted in reverse on the front of the Nikkor 100-300mm f/5.6 Ai-S lens.

 

[nerwin]

The Canon 500D is a high-quality, two-element close-up lens that is readily available in 77mm diameter filter fit, for use on all brands of 70-200 or 80-200mm zoom lenses. I have one, and it is a very good close-up filter, one I would actually recommend. This is NOT one of the the cheap, $25 rubbish + diopter filter sets sold in the 1970's and 1980's in a small leather case with three strengths of + diopter filters. The Raynox company also makes some good quality, two-element devices of this type. These are the option 2 choice overread is mentioning in his post above.

In the 62mm diameter size, I also own the superb Nikon 6T (six- "tee") two-element close-up lens. The 6T works wonderfully when mounted in reverse on the front of the Nikkor 100-300mm f/5.6 Ai-S lens.

You mentioned before you have the Tamron 90mm VC right? I think that's the lens I'm going to get. I keep hearing everyone saying how good the VC is.

 

[ruifo]

I have just done some tests with an FX 36mm sensor (D810), the three Kenko AF extension tubes (12, 20 and 36mm) and four lenses.

Here are the results I could produce (click to enlarge):

Test results:

• The 35mm 1.8G DX can reach '1.6 : 1' with two of the Kenko tubes mounted. For that, I needed to be VERY close of the subject (a ruler), and it focuses internally with the longest tubes combinations.
• The 50mm 1.8D can reach up to '1.4 : 1' with the three tubes combined together. For that, I needed to be quite close of the subject, less than the 35mm lens.
• The Tammy 70-200mm f/2.8 VC can reach up to '1.1 : 1' at 70mm only (that's real life size ratio), with the three tubes combined together. For that, I needed to be VERY close of the subject, closer than the 35mm, almost touching the ruler, what is not good (you loose a lot of light, and you scare live subjects).
• And the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro can reach up to '2 : 1', double the life size ratio. For that, I could keep a good distance away from the subject, which is great.

Not bad.

 

[nerwin]

Interesting, I thought about getting extension tubes for my 50 1.8G to start out with with...but still thinking I will be better off getting the Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC.

 

[Phoenix77]

I'd go with the Tamron 90 f2.8 VC. I have own the non VC version of this lens for a few years now and been quite satisfied with it. It's been my macro/portrait (prime) lens before I decided to get the 105 DC recently for portrait use. The Tamron will now be dedicated for macro duties only. The IQ of the lens is amazing! VC can surely help in normal shooting conditions but I dont know for macro.

When I started to try doing macro, I used close-up filters but eventually found the need to get a true macro lens. The close-up filters was my way of testing macro without breaking the bank.

 

[ruifo]

The Tammy 90mm f/2.8 Macro is the best cost-benefit among all macro lenses. You can't go wrong with it. I just don't like the fact that the lens barrel extends out, and went with the Sigma 105 myself (I rarely expose it to weather, anyhow). These two, and the Nikor 105, the Tokina 100, and the Sigma 150 are probably the best out there for macro, nowadays. You cannot go wrong with any of them.

 

[nerwin]

The Tammy 90mm f/2.8 Macro is the best cost-benefit among all macro lenses. You can't go wrong with it. I just don't like the fact that the lens barrel extends out, and went with the Sigma 105 myself (I rarely expose it to weather, anyhow). These two, and the Nikor 105, the Tokina 100, and the Sigma 150 are probably the best out there for macro, nowadays. You cannot go wrong with any of them.

I don't think the new Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di VC does and its still a $750 lens!

 

[Dave442]

I really like having a dedicated macro lens. Used close-up filters, extension tubes and reversed lenses in the past, and still do for some higher magnifications, but the dedicated lenses are nice to use and can do more than just macro. I often select my macro for product shots where only a few shots may fall between 1:2 and 1:1. Let us know what you pick up.

 

[ruifo]

The Tammy 90mm f/2.8 Macro is the best cost-benefit among all macro lenses. You can't go wrong with it. I just don't like the fact that the lens barrel extends out, and went with the Sigma 105 myself (I rarely expose it to weather, anyhow). These two, and the Nikor 105, the Tokina 100, and the Sigma 150 are probably the best out there for macro, nowadays. You cannot go wrong with any of them.

I don't think the new Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Di VC does and its still a $750 lens!

The Sigma is $669 ($300 off at B&H right now, until Feb 28, 2015):
Sigma 105mm f 2.8 EX DG Macro Lens for Nikon AF Cameras 257306

 

[Forkie]

The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is my favourite lens. I use it for portraits and headshots more so than my 85mm f/1.8 and it is insanely razor sharp.

I adore it.

Oddly, I haven't actually used it for any macro photography (!), so can't comment on that. But if someone said they were going to take all my lenses and leave me with just one, it would be that one.