macro lens suggestions.

pixmedic

I am the Lord thy Mod
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
15,469
Reaction score
7,848
Location
Central Florida
Website
www.flickr.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Now that my hunt for a mirrorless camera is over, (Oly E-PL5) I can now focus my attention on more frivolous things. IE: a macro lens.
I have been looking at used lenses in nikon along with some sigma/tamron counterparts. So far I have looked at
Nikon 60mm 2.8D, 105 mm 2.8D, and 55mm 2.8 AF.
Tamrons 90mm 2.8, and sigmas 150 mm 2.8.

Some of you might notice that I have been looking at older AF lenses, which is mostly for budget reasons, but although AF isn't important for macro work, I want to also be able to use it for other things as well.

Any thoughts on these lenses?
Any in the <$400 range I have missed?

For macro work it will pretty much be stationary objects.
 
Tamron's 90mm is solid. I've read Thom's review mentioning the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X is as also being very good. Sigma 105 EX Macro is not on the list. The Sigma 150 is a beautiful imager.
 
Tamron's 90mm is solid. I've read Thom's review mentioning the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X is as also being very good. Sigma 105 EX Macro is not on the list. The Sigma 150 is a beautiful imager.

Ah, I forgot about tokinas 100 mm 2.8 macro. I've heard it mentioned here a few times before. I'll have to check around for prices on them.
 
Nikon 105 micro gives you more room between the subject and the lens. This really helps when you are setting up a shot.
 
Tamron's 90mm is solid. I've read Thom's review mentioning the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X is as also being very good. Sigma 105 EX Macro is not on the list. The Sigma 150 is a beautiful imager.

The Tokina is what I have, and I just love it. I've had NO problems with sharpness (other than my own ability to focus!). When I first bought it, I had a D5100 that it wouldn't autofocus on, so I had to focus manually. Since I've gotten the D7000, I still find myself using manual focus with it probably 3/4 of the time. I just can't say enough good things about this lens!
Not sure what the price is new, but I bought mine used for just under $350. I think most of them go for closer to $400, though.
 
Sigma 70mm macro - lovely, sharp and generally a good performer (I think mine is hair sharper than my MPE65mm wide open). True its AF won't win any awards and it is somewhat noisy; but for macro I find it a great little lens. Lightweight and easy to use for stationary subjects it would be ideal.

150mm is also great; quieter AF system inside and its got a good working distance for giving a nice creamier background and more room to move around and light things. Whilst it can be a bit too long for close up work in tight environments its otherwise a fantastic lens.
 
Non living non moving subjects?

I suggest the under rated Nikon 60mm 2.8G since working distance shouldn't be an issue. Dollar for dollar it really can't be beat... Except... Maybe... Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe by the Tamron 90mm 2.8 II (the 2nd gen non-VC).
 
Non living non moving subjects?

I suggest the under rated Nikon 60mm 2.8G since working distance shouldn't be an issue. Dollar for dollar it really can't be beat... Except... Maybe... Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe by the Tamron 90mm 2.8 II (the 2nd gen non-VC).

I agree and disagree.

I agree its a great lens, I know I own it, super sharp, excellent for macro and excellent as an everyday lens.
I disagree its underated, I think lots of people like and appreciate it for its macro abilities and versitility thats why it keep very good value in the second hand market.
 
I was thinking a good macro lens could round-out my collection, but I'm also leaning heavily at just a set of tubes for my 85mm. I saw a video that Matt Granger did using the 85mm vs. the Tamron 90mm and there wasn't much difference between the two--but the price difference is there for sure.
 
Tubes a pain though - you can't just slip them on and off. A macro lens can go from infinity to close up in seconds with no fiddling around needed in the middle.
 
Tubes a pain though - you can't just slip them on and off. A macro lens can go from infinity to close up in seconds with no fiddling around needed in the middle.

true, but possibly worth the effort for the times one might need a macro shot or two. YMMV.
 
Tubes a pain though - you can't just slip them on and off. A macro lens can go from infinity to close up in seconds with no fiddling around needed in the middle.

true, but possibly worth the effort for the times one might need a macro shot or two. YMMV.

Ah if you were half as lazy as me then you would think macro lenses is the way to go :mrgreen:
 
I was thinking a good macro lens could round-out my collection, but I'm also leaning heavily at just a set of tubes for my 85mm. I saw a video that Matt Granger did using the 85mm vs. the Tamron 90mm and there wasn't much difference between the two--but the price difference is there for sure.


According to Bob Atkin, close-up dioptor is better than extension tubes when used with telephoto lens. So maybe take a look at that as well.

Canon closeup work - Macro imaging options
 
I disagree its underated, I think lots of people like and appreciate it for its macro abilities and versitility thats why it keep very good value in the second hand market.

I guess I should've quantified my statement with more context, but I meant under rated in terms of usability. It's not often one I see suggested or suggest myself unless it's static objects and working distance isn't an issue even though with proper ninja skills it can be used in any macro situation you would normally suggest a longer focal length for in particular for ease of use.
 
I disagree its underated, I think lots of people like and appreciate it for its macro abilities and versitility thats why it keep very good value in the second hand market.

I guess I should've quantified my statement with more context, but I meant under rated in terms of usability. It's not often one I see suggested or suggest myself unless it's static objects and working distance isn't an issue even though with proper ninja skills it can be used in any macro situation you would normally suggest a longer focal length for in particular for ease of use.
I think the Nikon 60mm 2.8G or its "D" older sister were made to be more versatile lens compared to the 105mm Micro lens.
Yes for pure macro only use the 105mm would probably be better but if you want a macro lens that can do many more things very well the 60mm will be a good choice.
I think the 60mm was designed for people like me hobbyists and not for pro's.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top