Macro Choice for D5100

MatthewMorris · Jun 19, 2012

I have been googling my A*s off and visiting many websites, but it is nice to hear from peoples with experience with macro lenses for Nikons. I am trying figure out if going with an older lens or even a D lens may have its benefits verses a brand new lens. I have a project in my head and I need to get as close to the tiny subject (about the size of a dime) as possible. Most new lenses only seem to get as close as 6 inches. My lens baby 50mm with macro kit I can get 1.5 inches but that lens fils the edges with focus blur. Just curious what other options my un-expieranced a*s doesn't know about.

Overread · Jun 19, 2012

Macro isn't about getting close, its about a magnified image of small things; as a byproduct this tends to mean you need to get closer to get the increased magnification, but not always and not always to the same degree.

So don't judge macro by the minimum focusing distance, instead judge it by the magnification of the lens itself. True macro (which is what pretty much every macro prime* lens on the current market gets to) is 1:1 magnification. That is the size of the image reflected on the sensor by the lens is the same as the size of the subject in real life. Many zooms with macro in the title are often only, at best, 0.5:1 or half life size.

Also, because its a ratio between the sizes the focal length of a true macro prime lens has no effect on the magnification. 1:1 at 40mm is identical to 1:1 at 200mm - however the background will be rendered differently. The shorter focal length will show far less blurring, whereas the longer focal length will show far more blurr. Note this tends to be more visible when comparing the extremes of focal lengths (as in the example just stated). Also note that depth of field remains the same - however the shorter lenses can appear to have a little more because of the reduced blurring of the background.
The other property that chances is the distance between the front of the lens and the subject, called working distance (minimum focusing distance is from the sensor/film in the camera to the subject). Longer focal lengths will give you more working distance over shorter focal length lenses.

As a general rule of advice:
1) 50mm is the shortest you should go with a macro lens. Even then you are right ontop of your subject. Any shorter on a true macro lens (Eg Nikons 40mm micro or a Tokina 35mm macro) and you really can't do 1:1 shooting very easily because you've almost no distance to the subject (you are right ontop of it, meaning that you are overshadowing your subject and have very little room to add lighting).

2) If working with insects 90mm (ie Tamron 90mm macro) or longer is the recommended focal length. Shorter is indeed possible, but having a little more distance helps with not scaring the subject as often as you move in close.

3) Almost all macro focusing is done manually, some newer cameras and lenses are slowly challenging this (far as I know Canon are with a hybrid AF system) however its still the general rule that manual focus is the way to go with macro. As such if you go for older lenses you won't lose anything having to manually focus them.

Ps - Nikon calls them micro lenses, I don't know why, since everyone else calls them macro
*single focal length

MTVision · Jun 19, 2012

MatthewMorris said:
I have been googling my A*s off and visiting many websites, but it is nice to hear from peoples with experience with macro lenses for Nikons. I am trying figure out if going with an older lens or even a D lens may have its benefits verses a brand new lens. I have a project in my head and I need to get as close to the tiny subject (about the size of a dime) as possible. Most new lenses only seem to get as close as 6 inches. My lens baby 50mm with macro kit I can get 1.5 inches but that lens fils the edges with focus blur. Just curious what other options my un-expieranced a*s doesn't know about.

I have a Tokina 100mm F/2.8 for my d5100 - it's manual focus. If your looking for a Nikon lens specifically going with an older lens isn't an issue since you don't really need autofocus with macro.

MatthewMorris · Jun 19, 2012

Thanks. I am keeping my options open and basically being acceptive of all suggestion Nikon old new / off brands. You like the tokona?

coastalconn · Jun 20, 2012

Manual focus is preferred in macro. Manual metering not so much (at least by me). I started out with the first version 90mm f2.5 adaptall lens (manual focus no cpu). It was very sharp and had great contrast, however it was only 1:2 magnification without tube or tc. At that time I had a D5000 so it was pure manual metering which is tricky with a flash involved. I now have a Nikon 60mm af-d f2.8 micro and a tamron 90mm f2.8 model 72e. I think the Nikon might be slightly sharper (only at a pixel peeping level) but I normally use the Tamron most of the time. If I stack a tube and my 1.4x TC, I get 2:1 magnification meaning my entire image is about 12mm x 8 mm but you have no DOF to work with (think mosquito head).

With that being said the Tamron is really a great value in a macro lens. The 72e (there are newer 172e and 272e) can sometimes be found used for 200 bucks. I would really recommend getting getting an af-d style lens so it meters with the d5100. You can tell by looking at the mount as they will have 5 contacts. I have also seen great reviews on the new Tamron 60mm f2 which I believe has a built in motor for your camera. In general all prime macro lenses are very very sharp.

prakhardeep · Jun 20, 2012

AF is the last thing i would worry when shooting macros.

That said, Tamron 90mm is best VFM macro lens on market and VFM doesn't mean it is weak in IQ. It is head to head with hugely expensive Nikkor and Cannon AFA IQ goes.