Help choosing a Macro Lens for D90

psesinkclee · Feb 2, 2011

I shoot with a Nikon D90 (while my d3000 is gathering dust n the shelf) and I'm looking into getting a nice macro lens to bring along on field research in central African forests.

The main thing I want a macro lens for is flowers. I will not be using it much for insects (unless one catches my eye) and will not be using it for portraits at all, only up-close shots.

I will be shooting with it hand-held 90% of the time because it is not convenient for me to carry around a tripod. I am ordering a monopod this week, so I would be able to use it mounted on that if needed (doubles as a walking stick too!). I have an sb700 flash that I could use (if completely necessary), probably held off camera with a spare hand.

I have been looking at the Nikon 60mm 2.8 and the 85mm 3.5 VR. (The 105mm VR would be wonderful, but it is not in my budget and I don't believe I need the extra focal length for more shooting distance. I would really appreciate some help with this (and if you can think of any reasonable alternatives, let me know), especially concerning if I need the extra 2/3 stops that the 60mm offers even with its shorter focal length.

Thanks

Markw · Feb 2, 2011

As for the focal length, you may appreciate the extra length attained with the 105. Think about shadows. If the sun is high in the sky, with a 60mm, you're basically 1" away from the object, undoubtedly casting a terrible shadow on the flower and making shooting miserable. With the 105, you can get roughly 4.5" away at 1:1. This can never really hurt, right? That being said, I have owned a 50mm, 105mm, and 180mm macro. F/2.8, 2.8, and 3.5 respectively. The 180mm has by far been my favorite. Shadows have always been a problem with the 105 and especially with the 50mm. If you are shooting ONLY flowers, the extra 2/3 stop won't matter much..you won't be shooting wide open at 1:1 most likely, and you will be manually focusing, so focus isnt an issue.

As for alternatives, there are many. These are what I would recommend:
Nikon 105mm F/2.8 AIS
Nikon 105mm F/2.8 VR AF-S IF
Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG
Tokina 100mm F/2.8
Tamron 90mm F/2.8
Sigma 70mm F/2.8 (kinda short...)

The 105/2.8 AIS would save quite a bit of money and still deliver amazing performance. All of these lenses will render basically the same product image. Macro lenses are among the sharpest offered, and all of these follow suit. For flowers, focus noise, extending front bits, etc. doesn't really matter. Keep in mind the working distance, though, for shadows and such. I wouldn't use anything less than 100mm for bugs if you are considering that..which I'm sure, being in Africa, it'll be hard to resist.

Good luck! :thumbsup:
Mark

psesinkclee · Feb 2, 2011

Thanks for the reply Markw, and the correction on the f/stop.

I was looking at the minimum focussing distance on the other Nikkor Micro lenses and they don't seem too bad. The 60mm 2.8 has a minimum focus distance of 0.6 feet (7.2 inches) and the 85mm 3.5 has a minimum focus distance of 0.9 feet (10.8 inches). Of course, the 105mm 2.8 does have have a longer close focussing distance of 1 foot, but I can't afford it on my budget (grad student = not much spare cash at all haha).

Another big reason I was looking at the 60mm and 85mm lenses from Nikon was how the physical length of the lens doesn't change with focusing, and the older Nikkor 105mm as well as the Sigma 105 extend quite alot.

P.S. - I have the Tokina on your wish list and its a beauty, I love it to death and gosh is it wide... Tried out the Sigma on your list too when I was doing some research in Kruger Park (massive game, safari, reserve in S.Africa) last July and I really want one now for wildlife, especially birds.

digital flower · Feb 2, 2011

I have both the 60 and the 105. The 60mm is truly a great lens and pretty affordable. It does a great job on flowers and I often use it as a walk around lens. it is on my camera about 75% of the time. The 105 is amazing but a lot larger and heavier and as you know it costs a lot more.

Overread · Feb 2, 2011

The only real bonus you'll get with flower work and a longer focal length macro lens is increased distance from the subject and thus increased blurring of the background areas of the shot - which might or might not be desireable. You might also find length of use for flowers in harder to reach spots - though similarly sometimes in a close environment a short distance to work with is golden (I've no idea of the landscape you'll be working in).

Otherwise I agree with the others - image quality across the board for the suggested lenses is going to be on the same level so that far there isn't a bad choice. So go for the one that fits your budget and needs the best.

Also -- can I come too - I'll shoot the bugs - you the flowers and we'll find someone else to do the spiders!

(unless they are cute jumping spiders)

psesinkclee · Feb 2, 2011

Thanks. From what I read on other sites, it seemed to come down mostly to the working distance needed.

When abroad, I will be working in equatorial rain forests that are not too dense. And when I'm back state-side I'll be using it at flower shows and on hiking trips for wildflowers.

I have been leaning towards the Nikkor 85mm 3.5 VR because its focal length seems like it is a good compromise and the VR should help since I shoot mostly handheld.

Overread · Feb 2, 2011

Is that the 85mm macro lens? (I keep forgetting that nikon made one around that focal length) If so then it should be an ideal option - I've used a 70mm macro for light work and its a good working lens for many things and not too heavy either.

psesinkclee · Feb 2, 2011

Yep, its the Nikkor Micro 85mm f/3.5 VR

Markw · Feb 3, 2011

Interesting. Keep in mind, though, that those working distances are from the back of the camera, not the back of the lens. You are going to have to subtract the width of the camera and length of the lens from those working distances.

I have never tried the Nikon 85mm Micro..something interesting that is definately on my list, though!

Good luck! :thumbsup:
Mark