I want to buy a macro lens, go inexpensive to learn or save and get a better one?

Ernicus · May 18, 2012

Title kinda says it all, and I know price does not always dictate quality. I want to learn to take true macro pics. I was looking at the Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 which is affordable for me, I think it was 280.00 last time I checked. However, I don't want to waste money either. It has good reviews on many sites that I've come across. My only fear is that I get it and it doesn't do what I want. lol. The next option up, price wise is the 50mm f/2.8 which is a manual focus lens, which I was thinking would be great to learn on as well in the area of manually focusing simultaneously; this one runs around 400 bucks. I'm sure I'm overthinking it all, but again, just looking for any experience with the two and opinions.

Derrel · May 18, 2012

I have always suggested buying macro lenses on the used market. Seriously. Macro lenses are some of THE-MOST-bought and yet the least-used lenses among hobbyists.

The Scenario: 1) Buy a macro lens 2) spend one month using it 3) Put it away 4) Sell it used, consign it to a dealer, or trade it in to raise cash to buy something else. 5) second owner: repeat process 6) Third owner, repeat process/

I have three 25 to 35 year old BRAND NEW macro lenses which I acquired for $95, $105, and $50. (Two Nikkors and one Vivitar Series 1). I also have a brand new Nikkor 60mm AF-D I got for $125 off when it was 4 months old when the guy decided he wanted a 105mm macro and not a 60.

My advice is also--don;t buy a 40mm macro lens unless you shoot a LOT of documents, like 8.5x11 business letters or flat artwork like sketches. Buy a 90 Tamron or a 100mm Tokina--USED.

Ernicus · May 18, 2012

I thought of going used, but locally not much options, small town, so I'd be forced to trust the internet and shipping.

I don't plan on doing docs, probly ever. My interest is macros of nature, flowers, bugs, animals, or anything else I find cool that I can add an artistic flare to.

Thanks for your input, well received.

Derrel · May 18, 2012

Ohh--I see you own a Nikon D3100--which can mount and shoot with basically ANY LENS in Nikon F-mount...which means that basically any lens (except rare fisheye-Nikkors and the 21mm f/4 collectable) you can find in F-mount will mount on there, lock on, and the automatic f/stop control will work!!! You will have only MANUAL exposure control, where you set an f/stop and set the shutter speed in Manual mode, but ANY F-mount macrto can be used,.

Fr example, the so-called "pre-AI" lenses, like the 55mm f/3.5 Micro~Nikkor can be used. These retail around $85-$95 in Pre-Ai condition, and they are VERY WELL-BUILT, compact, and easy to use. I own a couple of them. Same with older Tokina 90mm f/2.8 manual focus macros...that lens is sort of a cult lens. Early Tamron 90mm AF-SP lenses will mount, and sicne they are autofocusing, will METER in auto and manual modes, but since the earlier ones have no focus motor in the lens, YOU will have to turn the focus ring. "Later" Tamron 90mm AF lenses for Nikon do have a focus motor; the Nikon D40 was soooooo influential, that the 3rd party makers immediately rushed to put AF motors in their top-selling lenses.

In actual macro shooting, autofocus is of very limited use; so...an "autofocusing" macro lens that has no AF motor in the lens gives 1) automatic light and flash metering and 2) EXIF info to the camera but means you will have to focus by hand--which is actually the normal,expected way to shoot macro shots...with the shooter deciding on how to focus!

The 'Baby Nikons" in the D40,40x,D60,D3000-3100-3200 and D5000 and D5100 can all mount basically ANY F-mount lens. Manual focus, AF, AF-D, or AF-i or AF-S or Sigma HSM. For bugs, flowers, etc, I think the 90,100mm,105, and 150mm macros are the handiest lengths. Nikon has made some very nice, older 105mm f/4 and f/2.8 Ai and Ai-S macro lenses.

TheFantasticG · May 18, 2012

You should try Kenko AF rings and a reversing f mount adapter. You can use both with "normal" glass if you decide to take the plunge and purchase a macro lens.

MTVision · May 18, 2012

Ernicus said:
Title kinda says it all, and I know price does not always dictate quality. I want to learn to take true macro pics. I was looking at the Nikkor 40mm f/2.8 which is affordable for me, I think it was 280.00 last time I checked. However, I don't want to waste money either. It has good reviews on many sites that I've come across. My only fear is that I get it and it doesn't do what I want. lol. The next option up, price wise is the 50mm f/2.8 which is a manual focus lens, which I was thinking would be great to learn on as well in the area of manually focusing simultaneously; this one runs around 400 bucks. I'm sure I'm overthinking it all, but again, just looking for any experience with the two and opinions.

I'll sell you my 40mm. It's pretty much brand new - only used a few times!

It does shoot true macro but the working distance is very small. The 50mm will be the same working distance wise. But if you can afford 400.00 you can always buy a nice used macro that has more working distance. I paid a little over 400 for my tokina 100mm macro - used.

Ernicus · May 18, 2012

I'm really thinking used is the way to go after the comments. Makes sense.

Derrel, thanks for the great post. To me, any lens under a hundred bucks that I can use for learning is well worth the buy, so I'll def look into listed options.

I can't afford 400 now, lol, but a month or two and I can. Just a typical noob thinking you have to spend money to get the right tool. I see, at my level, I don't have to spend that kind of money, as of yet anyway. lol

Thanks to all who are chiming in.

Imageon · May 19, 2012

I would go with the 55mm macro 3.5 or maybe 55 in the f2.8 version it focus to 1-2 by its self or with the PK 13 extension ring - 1-1.
Most all your serious macro stuff is done with manual focus or setting your magnification and moving in and out to focus. Rarely do you need auto focus. Check Nikon Manual Focus Fixed Focal Length Lenses - KEH.com They have a bunch of them for around 100 bucks.

IByte · May 19, 2012

Invest in the 105mm macro 2.8 and never look back. It's about 1k but well worth it

.

cgipson1 · May 19, 2012

The advantage to the 90mm, 100mm and 105 or longer lenses is the minimum focusing distance at full 1:1 macro. These lenses will give you six inches minimum or greater from the end of the lens.. enough not to scare most insects... and allow enough distance from your subject to allow light to hit it, instead of the lens blocking all of the light.

Shorter focal lengths have shorter focusing distances (40mm has around 3.5" for instance, from the end of the lens... which would scare off most insects)! If you want insects, I don't recommend anything under 90mm.

If you start adding tubes for greater than 1:1, it can severely decrease your DOF, and / or your focusing distance. The Kenko's are the best if you do decide you want rings as they have contacts to allow full functionality of the AF and Metering! I don't recommend using tubes, or going greater than 1:1 until you have some experience.

Derrel · May 19, 2012

Imageon said:
I would go with the 55mm macro 3.5 or maybe 55 in the f2.8 version it focus to 1-2 by its self or with the PK 13 extension ring - 1-1.
Most all your serious macro stuff is done with manual focus or setting your magnification and moving in and out to focus. Rarely do you need auto focus. Check Nikon Manual Focus Fixed Focal Length Lenses - KEH.com They have a bunch of them for around 100 bucks.

THIS ONE LOOKS GOOD for the users of the "Baby Nikon" series, which can use pre-Ai lenses.