Need a macro for Nikon on a budget

CThomas817 · Mar 25, 2018

Any suggestions for my best option under $500? I'm open to used. I'm looking in the 90mm to 105mm range - newborn work. I'd love the Nikon 105/2.8 but even used its out of my budget.

Any experiences with the Tokina 100mm? Tamron 90mm?

Thanks in advance.

jaomul · Mar 25, 2018

Tamron 90 is great, but I think all actual macro lenses have a good rep

Derrel · Mar 25, 2018

Tamron's 90mm AF has been around for a LONG time,in both screw-drive and in in-lens-motor variations. It's been a proven lens for Tamron for years and years. Make sure the lens will autofocus on the body you have if you buy an older version of the lens. My Tamron 90 is the older AF-SP version, with NO focusing motor in the lens. The very-newest version in Nikon mount has an in-lens focusing motor.

480sparky · Mar 25, 2018

I'll toss in the 'old' Nikkor AF-D 105/2.8 Micro. Still a very worthy tube of glass.

CThomas817 · Mar 25, 2018

Derrel said:
Tamron's 90mm AF has been around for a LONG time,in both screw-drive and in in-lens-motor variations. It's been a proven lens for Tamron for years and years. Make sure the lens will autofocus on the body you have if you buy an older version of the lens. My Tamron 90 is the older AF-SP version, with NO focusing motor in the lens. The very-newest version in Nikon mount has an in-lens focusing motor.

Hi... shooting on a D800 so internal lens motor not necessary. Thanks for the advice!

CThomas817 · Mar 25, 2018

480sparky said:
I'll toss in the 'old' Nikkor AF-D 105/2.8 Micro. Still a very worthy tube of glass.

K thanks

CThomas817 · Mar 25, 2018

Do you own the D? Is it loud? My 50mm 1.4 is a D and it's loud when focusing but I'm further away from the baby so it's not a big deal. With the macro I'm obviously going to be closer and trying to minimize sound

480sparky · Mar 25, 2018

I own a 105/2.8 D. It's not loud at all.

ac12 · Mar 25, 2018

With a D lens, noise will also depend on how far it has to AF.
With a long travel, the motor is running just a bit longer than a short travel.
Especially if the lens goes into hunt mode.

I don't have a D800, but if it is like the F4, where the AF motor is a lot snappier, faster and louder than on my D70. The sudden snap action of the AF could be more disturbing than a slower starting AF.

tirediron · Mar 25, 2018

480sparky said:
I own a 105/2.8 D. It's not loud at all.

Agree; you can hear it, especially if the AF rack has to travel its full distance, but it's not loud. You can also just go for a set of extension tubes, than almost any lens becomes a macro....

Braineack · Mar 26, 2018

I feel like I saw a deal on a tamron 90mm recently...

edit: n/m it was for the Sony: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di 1:1 VC

Braineack · Mar 26, 2018

sometimes I actually like to hear the lens focusing... some of my lenses I have no idea if they are actually focusing or not when they are so quite and moving in short distances that you cant pick up within the viewfinder.

Designer · Mar 26, 2018

Another option. I own this:

https://tokinausa.com/product/at-x-...MI4p3R0pSK2gIV0wOGCh1V6QZREAAYAiAAEgJfpvD_BwE

petrochemist · Mar 26, 2018

I doubt any new-born images will actually reach true macro (1:1 on the sensor, or for most cameras less than 18mm). Even a shot of just the baby's hand is significantly bigger than this. So the images you're taking will technically be close-ups rather than macro.
Standard macro lenses will be good for this but many 'macro' zooms are also actually adequate. However I would opt simply for a set of extension tubes for a moderate telephoto, allowing closer than normal focus while not getting the lens so close to the baby as to disturb it. Splash out for a set that includes all the electronic connections & your typical 50-200 lens will cover anything your likely to need for new-born shots complete with AF. If you have a shorter focal length lens as well you'll be able to get to greater than life size if you do want the baby's fingerprints individually

CThomas817 · Mar 26, 2018

petrochemist said:
I doubt any new-born images will actually reach true macro (1:1 on the sensor, or for most cameras less than 18mm). Even a shot of just the baby's hand is significantly bigger than this. So the images you're taking will technically be close-ups rather than macro.
Standard macro lenses will be good for this but many 'macro' zooms are also actually adequate. However I would opt simply for a set of extension tubes for a moderate telephoto, allowing closer than normal focus while not getting the lens so close to the baby as to disturb it. Splash out for a set that includes all the electronic connections & your typical 50-200 lens will cover anything your likely to need for new-born shots complete with AF. If you have a shorter focal length lens as well you'll be able to get to greater than life size if you do want the baby's fingerprints individually

My 50 & 85 primes as well as my 24-70 are typically my go-to lenses for any shots not involving high detail. I don't think I can invest in a 50-200 right now. Anything with macro capability whether a prime or zoom would be fine, just trying to do so on a budget. I will look into the extension tubes... thanks!