Macro Lens Suggestion

PhotoRI · Oct 13, 2012

I have a D3100 with an 18-55 and AF-S 55-200 but i'm looking for a starter macro lens that I can get some nice up close and detailed shots of wildlife/bugs/plantlife etc. I'm not looking to break the bank as my D3100 and 2 lens cost around $800 so something low cost but still decent quality would be great.

Thanks
RI

orb9220 · Oct 13, 2012

Cheapest solution for the D3100 since it will take pre-Ai manual glass. Would be the Nikkor 55mm f3.5 micro does 1:2 out of the box and with Pk-13 extension tube would do 1:1. But would be No metering and No AF fully manual lens.

Had one for my D40 and coast me $45 bucks as was a great start.

Lobby flower with 55 3.5 micro by Orbmiser, on Flickr

New Beginning by Orbmiser, on Flickr

But isn't really for bugs as minimum focus distant would scare them away. Needing more stand off room for bugs then you are looking in the 90mm-150mm macro lenses for best results.

Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP AF/MF 1:1 Macro But will run you $480 new and around the $300 mark used.

For more stand off I picked up a Kiron 105mm f2.8 1:1 macro manual lens for $250 used.

Then there are the Canon 500D & Raynox Closeup filters you can mount on front of lenses for under $100.

I'm sure others will be helpful and have first hand experiences of many other macro type lenses to share there take on it.
.

PhotoRI · Oct 13, 2012

Great info, thanks Orb.

Yeah $300 really isn't in the budget right now so something priced around that Nikkor 55mm would be ballpark for me. Would you suggest that over one of the closeup filters that you mentioned for my existing lenses?

orb9220 · Oct 14, 2012

Yes a dedicated designed macro lens will always do better than the screw on front close-up filters.
.

Judobreaker · Oct 14, 2012

Extension rings.
Cheap, no quality loss.
The only thing you lose with extension rings is a bit of light so a flash might be handy there.
Then again, I have a dedicated macro lens and I still nearly always use flash so it wouldn't make much of a difference for me...

A cheap flash with a home-made diffuser should be more than enough, I believe some people even manage pretty well with the built in flash and a home-made diffuser.

sm4him · Oct 14, 2012

Yep, extension rings. Before I got a real macro lens, I used Kenko extension tubes and my kit 18-55 lens on my D5100; there's a bit of a learning curve to figure out focusing and DOF issues, but it's about the cheapest *decent* solution you'll find. Screw-on close-up filters are just not worth it, imo.

I've also heard a lot of good things about just using a reversing ring, which basically allows you to mount your lens on the camera backwards. A reversing ring is even cheaper than tubes (decent tubes, anyway). To be honest, I never bought one because the idea of mounting my lens backwards kinda scares me, but lots of people seem to manage it just fine. I'd just be the person who would accidentally scrape the camera on something and put a huge gash in the rear lens element.

Whether you go with a reversing ring or tubes, start saving your money, because if the macro bug hits, you're gonna NEED a real macro lens. I LOVE my Tokina 100mm f/2.8!

PhotoRI · Oct 16, 2012

Been looking around andfor a low price how does something like this look for a starter macro lens? Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM Zoom For Nikon D-SLRs 861306

orb9220 · Oct 16, 2012

That isn't a macro lens but a general shooting lens.
.

21limited · Oct 16, 2012

I picked up a Tamron 90 on kijiji for $250, it's a killer lens. Worth the hassle of looking second hand. However, I'm not sure if it's worth the hassle to manual focus it. Often we do in macro anyway, but there are lots of times when we don't have to, landscape and wildlife.

Solarflare · Oct 17, 2012

Cheapest solution is .. the AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR you already have.

It can do macro up to 1:3.2, which is not too bad. Its certainly sufficient for my own personal needs.

greybeard · Oct 17, 2012

Solarflare said:
Cheapest solution is .. the AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR you already have.

It can do macro up to 1:3.2, which is not too bad. Its certainly sufficient for my own personal needs.

Yes, the 18-55 at 55mm stopped down is pretty descent. You add a Raynox 150 and it will get you even closer. Right now, I use the Raynox with my 55-200 and I'm really happy with it.

PhotoRI · Oct 18, 2012

So what are the pros and cons (price wise and performance wise) between an extension tube or the Raynox 150?

Judobreaker · Oct 19, 2012

I think the Raynox loses less light than extension tubes, however because it is extra glass it will degrade quality in some matter whereas extension tubes will not.
You can get good results with both though.

Dao · Oct 19, 2012

Judobreaker said:
I think the Raynox loses less light than extension tubes, however because it is extra glass it will degrade quality in some matter whereas extension tubes will not.
You can get good results with both though.

Base on the information I read, extension tube will degrade image quality as well. It is because the lens is designed optimally to cast the image to the recording medium when mount directly on the camera body. When a extension tube is introduced, then the lens is not at the optimal design anymore.

greybeard · Oct 19, 2012

The Raynox 150 with the 55-200 works better than one would expect. I shoot with the 55-200 a lot. I keep the Raynox in my pocket and just snap it on when I need it. Very convenient and the IQ is much better than I expected with a zoom and a closeup lens.