Macrophoto - getting close from far away

[mkengel]

I like to have a close look at things "far away", e.g. a flower/bug which is 3 meters away.
Would this lens (see link below) be a good choice (I have a Nikon D5200) ?

Tamron 16-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD MACRO Nikon-f

What is the disadvantage of a macrozoom compared to a fixed macrolens?



Thank you

 

[tirediron]

The most obvious disadvantage is that despite the use of the word "macro" in the name, it's not a macro lens. With a maximum magnification of only 1:2.9, it's really not more than a slightly closer than normal focusing lens. A true macro lens is one which can focus to produce a 1:1 magnification, that is: One mm of subject is recorded at 1mm on the sensor. This lens will acheive approximately 1/3 at best. The other major disadvantage is that "superzooms" are by design, of inferior optical quality to proper macro lenses (and in fact most other lenses), simply because of the amount they're designed to do. Think of it as the Swiss Army knife of lenses. It can do a lot, but it doesn't do any of it really well.

If you really want to get into macro photography look for a used 105mm f2.8 'D' series macro lens. This will run ~$400-450 used, is built like a tank, is tack sharp across almost the entire diameter, even wide open, and optically, is an outstanding lens. It's also a great portrait lens. Yes, you will have to manually focus it, but AF is almost useless for most macro work, so no loss there.

 

[TCampbell]

Nikon makes a lens for this... a true "macro" lens, but it's not cheap: AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED from Nikon

That's perhaps a bit more than you wanted to spend, but the 105mm macro is more affordable and, as tirediron points out, you might pick up a gently used copy for a lot less.

Sigma also makes a few macro lenses (a 105mm, a 150mm, and a 180mm) -- but like the Nikon 200mm macro, the Sigma 180mm macro is rather pricey. Long focal length macro lenses just aren't cheap.

 

[mkengel]

Thankyou tirediron and Tim for your explanations. This adds another difficulty, the 200 micro is FX format which is not compatible with the D5200 and is quite expensive (as Tim already pointed out). The problem is, I actually don't know if I want to stay with the DX format cameras. I am always eyeing the bigger ones but I need a bit more practice before I am going to spend such an amount of money.

The 105 micro lens is probably this one: Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8D There it is said to have AF.
Anyway, here in Japan are quite a lot of old camera shops - let's look for it.

On the other hand, searching around, I found several reviews about the Tamron/Sigma/Nikon Megazooms - basically, all say, "huge compromise, good at lower focal ranges and quite weak at long ones". A second D5200 body is much cheaper than a megazoom.

Thank you guys again.

 

[WayneF]

The 105mm macro lens is also a FX lens.

But it does not matter, FX lenses work perfectly fine on DX. No problem at all (except perhaps size and weight and cost).

It is the DX lenses that don't work so well on FX.