Inexpensive Macro Lens

[~myStical~]

Hello guys ,
I am looking to buy a macro lens for my nikon d90 body . After doing some research I've come across the Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro , which seems affordable but before i go on and purchase one I was wondering if there are any other good inexpensive macro lens I can look in to. Possibly something cheaper than the Sigma 70-300 .

 

[MTVision]

Would you want a smaller lens? Nikon has a new 40mm macro that is around 260. I don't believe the 70-300 is true 1:1 macro but don't take my word on it!

 

[Overread]

It's a good lens for its price point, giving decent performance whilst also having a strong close up shooting mode (marketing called macro). However it's macro is only close focusing, not true macro and this can be an important point depending on what you want to take photos of.

for larger subjects such as flowers, the 70-300mm is an ideal option indeed. Whilst if you want smaller subjects, such as insects, then you'll want a true macro capable lens. These are more expensive, though you can get the effect (ie same magnification) more cheaply by using a set of Kenko Extension tubes between your kit lens and the camera (which will get you just over 1:1 magnification, which is what true macro lenses get).

For a real world idea this is what the 70-300mm can get at its best (0.5:1 magnificaiton)

Whilst this is what a true macro capable lens can do (1:1) or what a kit lens with extension tubes can do:

Maths bit:
1:1 means:: The size of the subject as reflected on the sensor by the lens:the size of the subject in real life.

Extension tubes magnification calculation
length of extension tubes in mm (stated on the tubes) - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification : 1

eg a kit lens at 50mm setting on the zoom with 50mm of extension tubes would give you:
50/50 = 1:1 (ie same as the true macro lenses).



Note kit lenses with extension tubes will have a very short distance between subject and the lens, whilst true macro lenses typically give you more distance to work with, they are of course more expensive.

 

[MTVision]

Not my thread but I have a question for you Overread. Would I be better of getting the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and extension tubes OR the 40mm macro? I would like to be able to get nice macro pictures but thats not all I want to do and I have a limited budget.

 

[chaosrealm93]

40mm 2.8

 

[Ron Evers]

Not my thread but I have a question for you Overread. Would I be better of getting the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and extension tubes OR the 40mm macro? I would like to be able to get nice macro pictures but thats not all I want to do and I have a limited budget.

Tough call!

Limited budget suggests the 50 & tubes.

 

[MTVision]

Not my thread but I have a question for you Overread. Would I be better of getting the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and extension tubes OR the 40mm macro? I would like to be able to get nice macro pictures but thats not all I want to do and I have a limited budget.

Tough call!Limited budget suggests the 50 & tubes.

Limited was the wrong word. I have money to spend but I don't want to spend an outrageous amount for my first lens. I'm new at all this and only have kit lense and I just want a better lens to work with. One that's good for portraits and can do OK macro. I was planning on buying the 50 but then I saw the 40mm micro. Not sure which was a better fit. Ive never used extension tubes or seen a picture taken with them.

 

[~myStical~]

It's a good lens for its price point, giving decent performance whilst also having a strong close up shooting mode (marketing called macro). However it's macro is only close focusing, not true macro and this can be an important point depending on what you want to take photos of.

for larger subjects such as flowers, the 70-300mm is an ideal option indeed. Whilst if you want smaller subjects, such as insects, then you'll want a true macro capable lens. These are more expensive, though you can get the effect (ie same magnification) more cheaply by using a set of Kenko Extension tubes between your kit lens and the camera (which will get you just over 1:1 magnification, which is what true macro lenses get).

For a real world idea this is what the 70-300mm can get at its best (0.5:1 magnificaiton)

Whilst this is what a true macro capable lens can do (1:1) or what a kit lens with extension tubes can do:

Maths bit:
1:1 means:: The size of the subject as reflected on the sensor by the lens:the size of the subject in real life.

Extension tubes magnification calculation
length of extension tubes in mm (stated on the tubes) - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification : 1

eg a kit lens at 50mm setting on the zoom with 50mm of extension tubes would give you:
50/50 = 1:1 (ie same as the true macro lenses).



Note kit lenses with extension tubes will have a very short distance between subject and the lens, whilst true macro lenses typically give you more distance to work with, they are of course more expensive.

I want to shoot flowers and water drops . Water drops on flowers and such. I love the second photo you posted. Nice bokeh and so sharp and focused. With the 70-300mm i can't get anything close to your second photo ?

 

[~myStical~]

Would you want a smaller lens? Nikon has a new 40mm macro that is around 260. I don't believe the 70-300 is true 1:1 macro but don't take my word on it!

Is the 70-300 like telephoto zoom lens then ? I just looked up the 40mm macro . I feel like its going to be similar to my 50mm f1.8 .

 

[Ron Evers]

Well MT, I have posted these examples a few times before but this is what can be done with a 50 on tubes.

This was a Minolta 50/1.7 on increasing lengths of a three tube set.

 

[MTVision]

Would you want a smaller lens? Nikon has a new 40mm macro that is around 260. I don't believe the 70-300 is true 1:1 macro but don't take my word on it!

Is the 70-300 like telephoto zoom lens then ? I just looked up the 40mm macro . I feel like its going to be similar to my 50mm f1.8 .

I think it is basically a telephoto lens. I can get similar photos like overreads 1st image with my 55mm-300mm kit lens. Not as good as but close. For water droplets you'll need a true macro or extension tubes which would produce pictures like the last images posted. The 40mm will be very similar to your 50mm but since it's a designated macro (micro in Nikon) I would think you would be able to get closer to/if not true macro. I'm just giving you my opinion - I'm no expert by any means. Extension tubes aren't super expensive if you wanted to try those.

 

[Overread]

I don't know anything about the Nikon 40mm macro, however I do use a Tokina 35mm macro so the working distances will be very similar. These lenses, whilst getting to the 1:1 magnification give you very little room between lens and subject, something that you do need with waterdrop type photography. In addition the short working distances makes a big challenge for lighting the subjects located so close to the lens.

In an ideal world Id say a Tamron 90mm macro or a longer focal length macro lens would be the best approach - followed up by a Nikon 60mm macro or Sigma 70mm macro. These lenses, whilst more expensive and specialist, will give you more distance to work with, which makes lighting a lot easier and also reduces the chances for slashes hitting the lens.

 

[~myStical~]

Still not sure what to get . I want to spend around 200.

Question .... what's the difference between Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro
And Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro .
Is it just the brand?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Still not sure what to get . I want to spend around 200.

Question .... what's the difference between Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro
And Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro .
Is it just the brand?

Kenko tubes and the lens you have.

 

[Ron Evers]

Here is an example of one of my Soviet 50s on a 12mm tube.

This is a crop of the above