I decided on a macro lens

[reissigree]

I decided to get a macro lens instead of a Raynox filter.
I just upped my budget to 200 bucks. I understand that I should get a 50mm over a 100mm lens.
What do you guys recommend? I have a Nikon D3100 so this lens should have a built-in motor, or maybe I would just shoot manual.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Macro-Digital/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

[URL="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-70-150mm-f-3-8-macro-Nikon-non-AI-lens-nice-/270812431033?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3f0dadc2b9#ht_3508wt_1163"]http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-70-150mm-f-3-8-macro-Nikon-non-AI-lens-nice-/270812431033?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3f0dadc2b9#ht_3508wt_1163

[URL="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Vivitar-70-210mm-f3-5-lens-Non-AI-manual-focus-series-1-VMC-macro-focusing-/170750909844?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item27c18c1d94"]http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Vivitar-70-210mm-f3-5-lens-Non-AI-manual-focus-series-1-VMC-macro-focusing-/170750909844?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item27c18c1d94

Th[/URL]e[/URL]re's just so many lenses.

 

[cgipson1]

THOSE arent Macro Lenses! They are normal every day (inexpensive) tele zooms with very limited Macro capability.... If you really want a Macro Lens, these are a waste of time!

 

[Judobreaker]

Uhm, this might depend on what you're shooting maybe but I'd say get a 100mm over a 50mm one.
100mm gives you a lot more working distance which is pretty handy.

Ps. Macro photography is usually done in full manual anyway so unless you also want to use the lens for other photos like portraits the auto focus isn't going to be a problem.

 

[cgipson1]

The Lenses you already have are better than these! Don't do it.. you will hate it!

 

[Overread]

As said above, those zoom lenses are not true macro lenses. The use of the word macro when attached to a zoom lens, in nearly all cases, is a marketing move simply to denote that the lens has a close focusing setup, but its not a true macro lens capable of a lifesize reproduction.

As an example here is what a 0.5:1 magnification lens can get (note this is about the best those zoom lenses get to with some being significantly weaker still)

And here is a what a true 1:1 macro lens is capable of

As you can see there is quite the difference in performance. For $200 you are only a very limited budget to get a new lens, though with a Nikon camera you might have some luck if you go for an older manual macro lens, though I don't know the nikon range well enough to note specific examples.

 

[reissigree]

The Lenses you already have are better than these! Don't do it.. you will hate it!

I won't do it! haha. How do I know what a true zoom lens is? And can I get a manual, used one for under 200 bucks?

 

[Overread]

Because I forgot to mention it - most lenses on the market which are prime lenses (a single focal length) with the word macro (or in the case of Nikon brand "micro") in the name are going to be true macro lenses. There are a few exceptions to this rule that I'm aware of:

Sigma 24/28mm - I forget which but one is listed as macro whilst lacking a proper 1:1 magnification ratio
Canon 50mm macro - isn't a true macro lens until you add its lifesize adaptor (sold separately); by which point you've spent a combined sum greater or equal to many longer all in one macro lenses.

I would also say that you don't want to get a macro lens shorter than 60mm. 50mm is ok in a push, though most of the 50mm ones I've seen tend to be budget lenses so lack on build and features. Once you go shorter and shorter (eg there is a Nikon 40mm and Tokina 35mm) the distances you have to work with at 1:1 are very hard to control; you will be overshadowing your subject easily and you will be exceptionally close. It makes such lenses good for close up and general shooting, but not suitable for the full 1:1 magnification work

 

[greybeard]

This is more of what you want if you want to do macro work
Amazon.com: nikkor macro

For $200 bucks you'll have to look into something used and strictly manual but, macro work is pretty much all manual anyway.

 

[reissigree]

Because I forgot to mention it - most lenses on the market which are prime lenses (a single focal length) with the word macro (or in the case of Nikon brand "micro") in the name are going to be true macro lenses. There are a few exceptions to this rule that I'm aware of:

Sigma 24/28mm - I forget which but one is listed as macro whilst lacking a proper 1:1 magnification ratio
Canon 50mm macro - isn't a true macro lens until you add its lifesize adaptor (sold separately); by which point you've spent a combined sum greater or equal to many longer all in one macro lenses.

I would also say that you don't want to get a macro lens shorter than 60mm. 50mm is ok in a push, though most of the 50mm ones I've seen tend to be budget lenses so lack on build and features. Once you go shorter and shorter (eg there is a Nikon 40mm and Tokina 35mm) the distances you have to work with at 1:1 are very hard to control; you will be overshadowing your subject easily and you will be exceptionally close. It makes such lenses good for close up and general shooting, but not suitable for the full 1:1 magnification work

Thank you for all the information! I'll keep on looking out there. I'll try to find a lens greater than 50mm.

 

[Joel_W]

My next lens purchase is also going to be a macro lens as well. I went middle of the road due to financial considerations (appeasing the wife is one of those considerations). I've decided on a Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens. Cost is $449 plus tax and shipping from Adorama. There is a $50 manufacturer rebate as well. This lens has gotten excellent reviews.

 

[reissigree]

Tamron | SP AF II 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens For Nikon With Built-In-Motor (55mm) *FREE SHIPPING* | AF272NII700 | Tri-State Camera, Video, and Computer
Here is that lens for 369. Would this fit on my D3100?

 

[Joel_W]

Tamron | SP AF II 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Lens For Nikon With Built-In-Motor (55mm) *FREE SHIPPING* | AF272NII700 | Tri-State Camera, Video, and Computer
Here is that lens for 369. Would this fit on my D3100?

Yes. Mine going on a D5000 that also doesn't have a AF motor in the body.

 

[reissigree]

I don't know if I should just get a macro filter like the raynox or if I should just get the lens.....

 

[Joel_W]

Just remember the old adage, you get what you pay for. Save your money, and buy a good, solid middle of the road macro lens.

 

[cgipson1]

so what changed your mind? The shots I did for you should give you some idea of what the raynox is capable of... shots like this:

a true macro lens will give better quality.. but they are more expensive..