Macro Lens

[goooner]

I'm in the market for a macro lens in the 90-105mm range. I've tested the Nikon 105/2.8 and the new Tamron 90/2.8 and can honestly not see any difference between the 2. i was little annoyed that I can't use the largest aperture (2.8) on either lens when close focussing. The salesman said that it is normal on macro lenses, but I was wondering why.

Anyone on here have experience with any of these 2 lenses?

 

[fmw]

f2.8 will result in very shallow depth of field but should work fine. For macro photography you will be at the small aperture end of the scale.

 

[goooner]

I know that I will probably never take a macro photo using 2.8, but I might want to take a portrait or some other photo using the 2.8. I just find it strange that the lenses are advertised as 2.8, but that I can't set it lower than 3-3.5 when its attached to the camera.

 

[jaomul]

Macro lenses generally can only get to their f2.8 at a certain focus distance, probably 5 feet to infinity.AFAIK some don't give this info to camera and can seem to be 2.8 when they are actually not at close distance, so they are cheating. In real use you won't miss this because even at f11 dof at these distances are tiny.

Tamron macro lenses are great and good value. Most users will probably say that the difference between the main macro lenses on the market at certain focal lengths are minimal. I bought a tamron 90mm over the sigma 105mm (both the modern ones with the fancy motors and stabilised) due the weather sealing, not because of the difference in image quality

 

[Overread]

Lens properties such as aperture and focal length are measured when the lens is set to infinity focus distance.

Most(many) lenses reduce focal length and aperture, by varying amounts, as they achieve closer focusing distances. The nikon 70-200mm f2.8 was notoriously "bad" at reducing its focal length at closer distances. However for the most part normal lenses you don't notice this much if ever.

Macro lenses you do notice, if you shoot Nikon; at least in aperture change. Nikon reports the change to the user, whilst many other brands don't. Even though the effective apertures are identical, the Nikon will appear to be closed down more stops when wide open. It's just a difference in how the cameras report to the user.

Rest assured you're getting the most of your lens even if its not able to shoot at f2.8 at its closest focusing distance.


As for variation its an area where the 3rd parties and own brand are very much on par; sharpness is generally very high for macro lenses os you want to look at things like blurring quality; features like VR (which barring canons new IS - is only a boon to macro and not essential/a game changer); AF modes (full time manual focusing is ideal but not essential - you'll use it in manual focus anyway for the majority of macro shooting - it can just be neat to have full time manual focus with backbuttong AF control - letting you shift between manual and AF at a whim).

 

[benhasajeep]

I'm in the market for a macro lens in the 90-105mm range. I've tested the Nikon 105/2.8 and the new Tamron 90/2.8 and can honestly not see any difference between the 2. i was little annoyed that I can't use the largest aperture (2.8) on either lens when close focussing. The salesman said that it is normal on macro lenses, but I was wondering why.

Anyone on here have experience with any of these 2 lenses?

The Tokina 100mm f/2.8 pro macro gets very very good reviews. Even better quality over Nikons newest 105 VR. And about 1/3 the price! I have the older Nikon 105 AF-D the new 105 VR and the 200mm AF-d micro lenses. All are good lenses. I have not personally tried a Tokina macro.

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro has no problem focusing wide open close to MFD ... even under low light.

 

[Derrel]

I'm in the market for a macro lens in the 90-105mm range. I've tested the Nikon 105/2.8 and the new Tamron 90/2.8 and can honestly not see any difference between the 2. i was little annoyed that I can't use the largest aperture (2.8) on either lens when close focussing. The salesman said that it is normal on macro lenses, but I was wondering why.

Anyone on here have experience with any of these 2 lenses?

Lens properties such as aperture and focal length are measured when the lens is set to infinity focus distance.

Most(many) lenses reduce focal length and aperture, by varying amounts, as they achieve closer focusing distances. The nikon 70-200mm f2.8 was notoriously "bad" at reducing its focal length at closer distances. However for the most part normal lenses you don't notice this much if ever.

Macro lenses you do notice, if you shoot Nikon; at least in aperture change. Nikon reports the change to the user, whilst many other brands don't. Even though the effective apertures are identical, the Nikon will appear to be closed down more stops when wide open. It's just a difference in how the cameras report to the user.

Rest assured you're getting the most of your lens even if its not able to shoot at f2.8 at its closest focusing distance.


As for variation its an area where the 3rd parties and own brand are very much on par; sharpness is generally very high for macro lenses os you want to look at things like blurring quality; features like VR (which barring canons new IS - is only a boon to macro and not essential/a game changer); AF modes (full time manual focusing is ideal but not essential - you'll use it in manual focus anyway for the majority of macro shooting - it can just be neat to have full time manual focus with backbuttong AF control - letting you shift between manual and AF at a whim).

Beautifully written, overread. YES! Accurate and explanatory! Focal length is typically reduced as the lens is focused more-close than Infinity, and the effective maximum aperture drops.

Loss of maximum aperture is not a problem at close distances; using f/2.8 at close range would be a fool's errand. The majority of close-range shots are done at f/8 to f/22, for the deepest DOF.

I am not familiar with the "new" Tamron 90 macro...I have a 25-year-old AF-SP model, and it has been a good macro lens for me since 2001. Bought it used. Still use it. IMMSMC, at 1:1, the tamron drops to 73mm effective focal length. Or maybe it's 77mm. I forget.

105mm is a longer lens. narrower angle of view. The difference between a 90mm lens and a 105mm lens is ***noticeable***.

 

[Overread]

Hmm, my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro has no problem focusing wide open close to MFD ... even under low light.

In my experience its only Nikon that reports the effective aperture change - other brands don't (for the most part I think its because its a moot point and just like lenses don't report focal length change, it would simply confuse most users = wait my prime is zoom?!). It might be that some 3rd party also don't fully report to the Nikon (though I thought the sigma did?)

 

[nerwin]

Hmm, my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro has no problem focusing wide open close to MFD ... even under low light.

In my experience its only Nikon that reports the effective aperture change - other brands don't (for the most part I think its because its a moot point and just like lenses don't report focal length change, it would simply confuse most users = wait my prime is zoom?!). It might be that some 3rd party also don't fully report to the Nikon (though I thought the sigma did?)

Yeah. Canon doesn't either AFAIK.

I don't know who would want to shoot 2.8 at 105mm at 1:1 ratio anyways, I mean what are you going to get in focus? Air molecules?

 

[Overread]

Get it right and razor thin depth of field can give interesting results
Naked Selfie
Some Like It Hot!

I should point out that those titles are --SFW and missleading