Macro

[kiwi314]

Hello all! I am looking to buy a lens with macro capability, primarily because we are expecting a baby and I want to be able to take close ups of it's lips, fingers, etc.

I use a Nikon D750 (full frame) and my lenses are as follows:
28mm 1.8 G (Favorite, and probably most used.)
50mm 1.8 G (Like this one as well, but the wider 28 seems to be convenient more often. Used as portrait lens, but would like one better suited.)
70-300 5.6 G (Use this a fair amount, but would really like to replace with better telephoto.)
28-80 5.6 (Haven't used this one, it's not even worth it when I have the 28 & 50.)

My husband and I do a lot of traveling, hiking and camping, which finds me grabbing the 28mm the most to capture the scenes. Often I'll keep the 70-300 along for the ride, in case I need to grab a telephoto shot, but it is a poor lens and I would really like to upgrade. But because we are expecting a baby in 2017, I am thinking maybe a macro should come first. My budget is flexible, but obviously the lower price the better. But if it is combo telephoto and macro, i'd be willing to spend more. But I don't want to sacrifice quality zoom just because it may have macro, either. I also would like a better lens for portraits eventually.

I am interested in the 105mm 2.8 - both Nikon and Sigma's models seem to be good lenses. Which would you say is better? I like the ability they have to focus at close distances, as I imagine I will be doing a lot of simply standing over baby to grab close ups. The other primary uses for macro would probably be food and random items.

I am thinking the 105mm would be good because of macro, decent portrait lens (right?), and mild telephoto, all of which I am in need of. What do you think? Is there a different lens you recommend? Or a combination of lenses?

Thanks for the input!

 

[jcdeboever]

I don't think you can go wrong with Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. Basically, it comes down to do you want image stabilization. The true 1:1 macro glass all seem to have excellent image quality. If you want to save money, your looking at AF-D glass but will not have stabilization. You can get a 105 2.8 af-d for around 325.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[kiwi314]

Actually the 105 2.8 IF-ED was the one on my radar. I'll have to look into the D as well.

 

[jcdeboever]

Actually the 105 2.8 IF-ED was the one on my radar. I'll look more into the D as well. I hear besides bokeh control though, the IF-ED surpasses.

Sure, it is a lot more money too. ED and internal focus ain't cheap.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[kiwi314]

Actually the 105 2.8 IF-ED was the one on my radar. I'll look more into the D as well. I hear besides bokeh control though, the IF-ED surpasses.

Sure, it is a lot more money too. ED and internal focus ain't cheap.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I was thinking of the DC. I hadn't yet come across the D. I'll look into it more, thanks.

 

[jcdeboever]

Actually the 105 2.8 IF-ED was the one on my radar. I'll look more into the D as well. I hear besides bokeh control though, the IF-ED surpasses.

Sure, it is a lot more money too. ED and internal focus ain't cheap.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I was thinking of the DC. I hadn't yet come across the D. I'll look into it more, thanks.

It's only going to be used. Nikon 105mm AF Micro-NIKKOR Review

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jl1975]

I have the Nikon 105 2.8 IF ED. It is fantastic. I haven't tried the sigma, tamron, or tokina models so I can't comment on those. But I can tell you the Nikon is great.

 

[dannylightning]

one thing you could look at would be extension tubes. i throw the extension tubes which still allow my cameras auto focus to work on my nikon 18-200mm lens and i can get photos like this.. a real macro lens would be better but if you want to save a few bucks you could try out some tubes.. with the tubes it seems the lens needs to be very close to the subject..

the lens was basically right up against a coin that was setting on a table so i was not getting any light due to the shadow of the lens, i laid a flashlight on the table to light the shot. i was seeing how close i could get the lens to the subject and still get a good focus

photos i have seen from the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro lens look great. the nikon 105mm macro lenses also do a great job.. i have never used either my self but i have seen some great photos from both..

playing with extension tubes20151217-DSC_6927 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr

 

[Solarflare]

Hello all! I am looking to buy a lens with macro capability, primarily because we are expecting a baby and I want to be able to take close ups of it's lips, fingers, etc.

I use a Nikon D750 (full frame) and my lenses are as follows:
28mm 1.8 G (Favorite, and probably most used.)
50mm 1.8 G (Like this one as well, but the wider 28 seems to be convenient more often. Used as portrait lens, but would like one better suited.)
70-300 5.6 G (Use this a fair amount, but would really like to replace with better telephoto.)
28-80 5.6 (Haven't used this one, it's not even worth it when I have the 28 & 50.)

The 28-80mm f3.3-5.6 is called "best midrange zoom I've ever used" by Ken Rockwell.

Nikon 28-80mm AF-D

The AF-S 70-300mm 4-5-5.6 VR is already a not too shabby lens. Especially its also compact and has some extra reach over the more common 70/80-200mm lenses.

But I would guess a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC would be a good upgrade. You get less reach but a lot more light and also abit better image quality.

Closeups of lips and hands of a baby will be hard with a full frame 36x24mm sensor, thats getting into 2:1 territory.

Actually the 105 2.8 IF-ED was the one on my radar. I'll look more into the D as well. I hear besides bokeh control though, the IF-ED surpasses.

Sure, it is a lot more money too. ED and internal focus ain't cheap.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I was thinking of the DC. I hadn't yet come across the D. I'll look into it more, thanks.

The Nikkor AF 105mm f2.0 DC [D and non-D versions are available] is possibly the best portrait lens in existence, with uber bokeh already even without the DC feature, but its also a moody diva and its certainly not a macro lens.



To my best knowledge, these are the most popular macro lenses for Nikon F:

Tamron 90mm f2.8 VC macro - The allrounder. Has all the features (autofocus, focus delimiter, image stabilization, weathersealing), a decent working distance thanks to 90mm, good optical performance including pretty good bokeh for useage as a portrait lens. Much cheaper and yet better than the Nikkor AF-S 105mm.

Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro - Tokina only produces two good lenses, the other is the 11-16mm f2.8 for DX cameras. This one requires motor in camera for autofocus. No image stabilization. Excellent optical performance, good bokeh for useage as portrait lens. Theres a teardown on YouTube that qualifies the build quality as pretty decent.

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2.0/100mm ZF.2 - manual lens, no image stabilization either. Theres even an older fully mechanical version, called ZF instead of ZF.2. You'll need the PN-11 for 1:1 macro. On the other hand, this is a macro lens with f2.0 and good bokeh to be used for portraiture and optically its probably the overall best macro lens in existence. This lens has no internal focusing. Personally I use a ZF version with the PN-11 and I'm very happy with it.

Nikkor PC-E 85mm f2.8 micro - manual Tilt/Shift lens, electronic automatic aperture (older cameras wont support that, but the D750 is fine), some annoying issues with the controls on Nikon cameras with a popup flash, cant move Tilt and Shift independently, but having Tilt ability on a macro lens is of course AWESOME. Only 1:2 macro though, so again a macro extension is needed for 1:1.

Sigma 150mm f2.8 OS macro - Popular because nobody else produces this particuar feature set; excellent working distance thanks to the 150mm focal length.

Nikkor AF 60mm f2.8 micro - Still in production and excellent, but theres not too much working distance. Getting a closeup of lips will make you shove your camera into your sons face.

Nikkor AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro - Also good. Famous for very fast autofocus. Which, mind, still doesnt mean its actually fast at macro distances.

Nikkor AF 55mm f2.8 micro - This is called "Nikons sharpest lens" by Ken Rockwell. A plastic lens without internal focusing.

Nikkor AF 200mm f4 micro - The legendary one. Still no AF-S version of that one, though there are sometimes rumors. Awesome working distance thanks to 200mm. No issues with optical performance either. Full metal build like most AF lenses.

 

[cgw]

For macro/portrait work, older manual focus Micro-Nikkors are well worth a look.

 

[kiwi314]

Thanks all for the replies! Very helpful.

I imagine the 105mm would be a great focal length for me. I wouldn't mind spending for the 105 2.8g, as I want whatever portrait lens I get to be high quality. But my concern is that it is only a 2.8, so I am wondering if it would be better for portraits to get the 85 1.8g (or other large aperture portrait lens) and then maybe a 55mm micro (maybe manual) instead for macro. I'm torn.

Yes, I have heard Tamron's 90mm is comparable, too. But if I'm going down in focal length, then what about compared to the 85mm 1.8 for portraits (and a 55 for macro instead)?

 

[kiwi314]

So I just ordered the Tamron 90mm macro that just came out this year. I didn't even know there was a new one until today, when I was settling in with the idea of getting the older version. I came across this, and suddenly there was no question about what lens I wanted. Can't wait for its arrival!

 

[Solarflare]

Congrats !

It was the same with my Makro-Planar 100mm Saw a good offer and have been happy ever since.

 

[greybeard]

I have the 105 and it is an outstanding lens. For what you are wanting to do, you may consider a Raynox snap on close up adapter. It will attach to the end of one of your lenses and allow it to focus much closer. Here is a Nat hanging from a water drop I captured with a 55-200 DX with a Raynox 250
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/H...n4Rlxq2Gmfi03hpmxCdVvgAc1xzfx7eB=w872-h950-no

 

[greybeard]

I have the 105mm AF-S with VR. I use mine both hand held and on a tripod. The VR is invaluable shooting handheld.