Don't know what macro lens to get

[nerwin]

At infinity focusing its f2.8
Its at the closer distances where it changes - just like the Nikon. You can know this for certain because 3rd party lenses (like those from Sigma or Tokina) which are identical optical formulas no matter their mount design; show the same behaviour. On a Canon they show f2.8 at the closest focusing distance; whilst on a Nikon they might show f5.6 (From what I recall some 3rd party might not report the change on a nikon)

It's purely a difference in how camera and lens talk to the photographer not a change in the actual optical properties.

You'd think Canon would implement that function. I knew that macro lenses do this, but I never fully understood why and really do appreciate all the help. I learned something new.

When reading reviews on macro lenses, you come across so many that gave the lens a bad review because the aperture changes when focusing closer. Haha. I mean for their sake, some pages display the lens as a constant f/2.8..but fail to mention only at infinity. If that was true, it would be nearly impossible to focus 1:1 at f/2.8..the focus plane would be so dang narrow! I seen some macros taken at f/8-f/11 and the background is still completely out of focus.

Another question I was wondering about..how much different is macro photography on a full frame sensor vs crop sensor? Better or worse?

 

[ruifo]

You do real 1:1 macro at f/22, f/36, f/45 etc...
These lenses need to manage diffraction really well. They need to be sharper.

 

[LostLensCap]

I have the Nikon 105 micro and I use it with and r1 macro flash setup. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think you need a macro lens. For the type of photography you are wanting to do I would think a "Normal" zoom or prime would be a better fit. (jmho) Anyway, any of the lenses you are considering are pretty good and you would have a really hard time distinguishing between pictures shot with any of them in a real world situation. The Nikon will focus extremely fast and I sometime shoot it at f2.8 in sports situation. It works well on my D7000. One down side to this lens is that it is as heavy as a tank.

 

[nerwin]

I have the Nikon 105 micro and I use it with and r1 macro flash setup. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think you need a macro lens. For the type of photography you are wanting to do I would think a "Normal" zoom or prime would be a better fit. (jmho) Anyway, any of the lenses you are considering are pretty good and you would have a really hard time distinguishing between pictures shot with any of them in a real world situation. The Nikon will focus extremely fast and I sometime shoot it at f2.8 in sports situation. It works well on my D7000. One down side to this lens is that it is as heavy as a tank.

I intend to use a macro lens as a macro lens and maybe an occasional portrait here and there.

 

[LostLensCap]

I have the Nikon 105 micro and I use it with and r1 macro flash setup. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think you need a macro lens. For the type of photography you are wanting to do I would think a "Normal" zoom or prime would be a better fit. (jmho) Anyway, any of the lenses you are considering are pretty good and you would have a really hard time distinguishing between pictures shot with any of them in a real world situation. The Nikon will focus extremely fast and I sometime shoot it at f2.8 in sports situation. It works well on my D7000. One down side to this lens is that it is as heavy as a tank.

I intend to use a macro lens as a macro lens and maybe an occasional portrait here and there.

The 105 micro will do you a fine job at both of these tasks.

 

[JJ on the road]

Got the Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC. Very happy with the lens.

 

[nerwin]

Thanks for all the awesome replies. Money currently isn't an issue..so its either going to be the Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC or the Nikon 105 2.8 VR...I'm leaning toward the latter at the moment.

 

[Overread]

See if you can find out if either takes teleconverters (Nikon - Sigma - Tokina Pro series). For me that would be the deal-breaker between those two (price excepted). If you can fit a TC you can get more magnification (1.4 gives 1.4:1 and 2* gives 2:1) without losing infinity focus. A 1.4TC is something I use a lot on my macro lenses because it really makes a difference 1:1 to 1:4 is a jump with something like a fly; you can really see the segmented eyes at 1.4:1

 

[sandollars]

A resounding PLUS 1 for 105mm f/2.8 Nikkor. It is crystal sharp and does great portraiture. If I could only have 1 lens it would be my 24-70 2.8 but if they let me have 2, second would be my 105 2.8.

 

[nerwin]

Well I got it! I ended up buying the 105 2.8G VR..just really preferred Nikon's colors and the resale value is so much higher..plus with Nikon lens rebates this month, I got it at $734! I'm happy. I was surprised by how heavy this lens is! Wow. Its also built like a tank..seems to be full of metal and glass. I think I made the right choice.

 

[480sparky]

......seems to be full of ...... glass..........

I would think so!

 

[nerwin]

Playing with it now and I am stunned how instant the focus is! My fastest focusing lens EVER. Now I wonder why people love the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses.

 

[ryanestes]

I have and like Nikon's 60mm macro, but if I were to do it again, I'd probably buy the 105mm.

 

[nerwin]

I have and like Nikon's 60mm macro, but if I were to do it again, I'd probably buy the 105mm.

Why is that?

 

[ryanestes]

Being able to either 1) shoot from farther back and still get a nice close image, or 2) the greater magnification of 105 allowing for options with macro shots. Also, I've heard that 105 is fantastic for portraits (though I know some people earlier in this thread disagreed with that).