Looking for some experience opinions and guidence

Valvaren · Apr 9, 2012

Hi guys, long time since I've been here, things have been slow but seeing as spring is creeping around the corner I'm hoping to get out and take some photos.

I'm looking into getting a macro lens and just put my name on a used SB-600 for roughly 200 (its like new). I'm torn between a few ideas and want you guy to tell me what you think would be best for me. Right now I just can't shell out 1000 for the nikon 105mm as much as I want too so its between the 40mm, 60mm or a Raynox lens.

The 40mm is 300.00 and a friend of mine has it and it is amazing, some of the photos are unbelievable, I'm really tempted to get it. He uses it for his reptile photography which is also what i'm looking into marco for so I know the 40mm can get me the results I want. However...

My fiance wants me to go for the 60mm which is 579.00. He figures it would get me some extra room to work with, but also costs me a couple extra months before I can get it.

My other option is the 129.99 Raynox 250 Super Macro Lens. My issue with this is manual focus (Atleast i've been told) which is something i'm really iffy on at this point. I'm new to macro and I don't know if I should try to learn both the basic macro techniques while also learning manual focus.

Basically is the extra 200 dollars worth the 20mm, should I get the Raynox ring? Would the Sb-600 even help with my macro photos?

tirediron · Apr 9, 2012

The 60mm is a nice fit with a crop-sensor camera (You don't mention which body/bodies you will be using it with) and normally runs around $350 used; the older version of the 105 can be had for $5-600 used. Used gear is a great way to save money; I have more lenses bought used than bought new and never regretted a one!

I would definitely by the longest lens I can, but don't worry about the manual focus aspect; you normally focus macro shots manually simply because the DoF is so shallow (often less than 1mm) that auto-focus isn't practical.

lonewolfsx · Apr 9, 2012

I have an older 105mm f/2.8 AF-D Micro, and it's easily the sharpest lens I've ever owned, it beats my brothers (canon) 24-70 2.8 L. I've seen these run on ebay for $450-600, and seem to be getting cheaper and cheaper. I looked at selling mine to stretch for a different lens at one time, and canned that idea because these lenses sell for stupid cheaper and well, they're awesome. Really surprised me.

Also tirediron above me is correct, most macro shots you'll be manual focusing anyway. I actually end up setting my focus to 1:1 for many subjects and moving the camera slightly forward and backward to get the DOF where I want it. You'd be surprised focused that close at 2.8 (well, it becomes f/5 that close) how extremely thin the focus field is, it's crazy.

In short, I'd go for an AF-D 105mm Nikon before I'd go for any of the shorter or off-brand ones. However I do hear very good things about the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and Sigma 150mm 2.8. That sigma 150 is the longest macro lens with that low of an aperture too, so pretty cool plus with HSM you could use it for some other applications like maybe mid-range sports. That lens has gone up a lot in price though, I remember it being $699? or was it $799? or so new and now I think it's over $1000… big jump for the same lens with no changes.

cgipson1 · Apr 9, 2012

I used a Tokina 100mm Macro for most of last year... and it is a great lens! Highly recommend that.. you can find them used $350-$400. The Tamron 90 that was mentioned does well also. The Nikon 105D rocks also....

adichiru · Apr 9, 2012

I have the Nikon 105 /f2.8 G. I shoot anything I can with it as it never fails in getting absolutely wonderful colors, contrast and most importantly detail and sharpness. Distortion is almost nonexistent, focus is fast and very quiet, built quality is great, weather sealed, long hood which really helps in rain or snow fall... nothing to complain about!

Here are a few samples:

I strongly suggest you buy a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 G or D, new or used (as long as it is in great shape). If you really can't afford it go with the Nikon 60mm.

I went to buy the 60mm f/2.8 Tamron macro and my wife together with the guy from that store convinced me to get the 105 f/2.8 which was a lot more expensive but I never, ever regret it. I completely forgot the sacrifices I made for a few months to pay the extra cost...

(I would not have bought the Tamron as it was really noisy and the noise was like the lens was broken or something, but it wasn't....)

cgipson1 · Apr 9, 2012

I currently shoot the 105G and love it. It is a great lens! It all depends on your budget, of course. I also highly recommend the Nikon 85mm macro... I have some excellent shots with that lens also.

This was shot with the 85mm

and yes.. flash helps with macro a lot. Good diffused flash is always good!

This was shot with the Tokina 100mm

Valvaren · Apr 19, 2012

Sorry guys for not responding, Lets see if I can clear this up.

First Charlie and Adichiru, love your pictures! You know how to make me green with envy.

I'm using a D90 body, sorry for not mentioning that before, I was excited and I tend to think fast then I type when I am.

Turns out I'm not getting my flash, someone ended up getting it before me so kiss that goodbye, on another note I might possible have my name on a used Sigma 105 F2.8 DG macro which I've been reading mixed reviews about. No word yet if I have my name on it or not, if I do I plan on giving it a huge test run the 14 free days I have with it before deciding whether to keep it or not and if I don't get it well i'll be on the look out for a used Nikon 105 or even the 60mm. [h=1][/h][h=1][/h]