Marco Lens

[Natural_Disaster]

I googled and wow is all i can say. Some of the lens cost as much as my camara...NikonD5000.
Are they really worth it?
Which is the best for my camara?

 

[marmots]

way too much to say here
but ill sum it up
wether or not its worth it depends on the quality of the lense but generally the lesser quality will be cheaper. which lens depends on what you want to do not which camera you have
say what you want to do and someone else should be able to he you out, but i dont know enough to do that

 

[TJ K]

Lenses are expensive. They are the main part of the whole system. The body will get replaced the lens wills stay with you for years and years. Here's a nice priced lens [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1265475100&sr=1-1"]Boom![/ame]

 

[Dao]

Some cost more than the camera itself. whether it worth the money or not, it varies from person to person.

The best way to do of course is getting a dedicated 1:1 macro lens (or even high magnification). And also depends on what type of macro shot you are planning to take.

Personally, I prefer to use a macro lens that has the focal length around 100mm when taking a macro shot of an insect.

This one should work with your camera since it is a AF-S lens
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Micro Nikkor

This one from Sigma is also good. But your camera may not be able to autofocus the lens.
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

This one from Tamron receive good review too. And it may not AF with your camera as well.
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 SP AFDG Macro


And there are some other cheaper way to do it.
The Canon close up lens 500D is a screw on filter like lens that allow you to focus closer. I believe Nikon has something like that too. But since it is a screw in type lens, so the canon one should work on other lens as long as the thread size is correct.

You can also use extension tubes to do close focusing. There are extension tubes that have electrical contacts so that the lens that attach to the extension still able to communicate with the camera.

 

[Phranquey]

Some of the lens cost as much as my camara...NikonD5000.
Are they really worth it?

Get used to that. I have a few lenses that cost more than my camera body.

Yes, for the most part. There are cheaper lenses out there that work good, but you really need to do your research to keep from getting a dud.

Lenses are expensive. They are the main part of the whole system. The body will get replaced the lens wills stay with you for years and years.

:thumbup: Cameras are now computers. Think of how quickly computer tech progresses, so if you stay in photography, you can probably count on replacing a body every few years.... but well built glass can be with you for decades.

 

[kundalini]

I googled and wow is all i can say. Some of the lens cost as much as my camara...NikonD5000.
Are they really worth it?
Which is the best for my camara?

There are a lot of options. I did quite a bit of research and self analysis. I knew that insects, butterflies and such were high on my list of what I wanted a macro lens for. This meant a longer focal length was better suited for me. I went with Nikon so that I could shoot Nikkor glass. I ended up with the 105mm f/2.8.

As been said already, the lens is the most important part of the system. If IQ is important to you, then I suggest to get the best you can afford or save up for a while until you can get the lens that is right rather than settling only to have buyer's remorse later. This can be an expensive hobby. It can also be quite addictive..........

​

 

[c.cloudwalker]

What's a Marco lens? A lens that allows you to take a photo of Polo?

Just messing with you. It's Saturday.

 

[rufus5150]

Some of the lens cost as much as my camara...NikonD5000.

In general, unless you're buying a flagship body, you're going to own glass that's equal to or more expensive than your camera, and even then, you may own a bit or two that's in the same stratospheric prices. Get used to this if you intend to pursue the hobby to any extent.

 

[Montana]

So very true, lenses are where you dump your paycheck. Bodies are just a small portion of the pie.

 

[KmH]

Jeez,

If the price of a macro lens is giving you pause:

Don't get interested in shooting night time field sports.

 

[Natural_Disaster]

No night time field sports for me...:er:
I guess what im asking is this...How much better is the lens, rather than just using the cameras settings?
Below is a picture i took last year with a Canon. All i remember is i just used the marco setting. I had never used a camera like that before, so had no idea what i was doing other than point and shoot. To me, its a pretty good picture...Not perfect of course, but pretty good for a first timer. On a scale of 1-10 how much better is the quality going to be if i am using a marco lens? I dont want to pay $1,000 for a lens to get only a bit better quality than i got with a $500 Canon.
(The canon met its death in a fourwheeling accident two weeks after i bought it, before i learned to use it :x)