Nikon Macro Lens Recommendations?

[jbylake]

I've been "googling" myself silly trying to find a decent Macro lens that doesn't cost more than my house.

Seriously, I just can't justify $1K to $2K for a hobby. I was looking at the 200mm f/4, as it seems to be very popular around the net, but way over my budget, even used.

Some of the "shorter" lenses and fixed lenses are nixed because you have to move the camera and refocus (and repeat) or they just cause you to move to close to be very useful. (Not my opinion, just a common theme on the 'net).

I just to get a good quality lens to start taking macro seriously, and then, if things work out, and I keep a serious interest I can pop for $1.5K for a "great" lens.

Thanks ahead for your time,

J.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Take a look at the lester dine 105mm also comes in the kiron flavor.

 

[jbylake]

Thanks. You know, I remember hearing about those, from way back in my film days, but just the name. I don't remember much else, as far as lens quality or anything else. Anyway, I googled them and there are a bunch of them on Ebay. Maybe something I might want to consider. If anyone has any experience with them and would like to share, I'd truly appreciate it.

Thanks,
J.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Thanks. You know, I remember hearing about those, from way back in my film days, but just the name. I don't remember much else, as far as lens quality or anything else. Anyway, I googled them and there are a bunch of them on Ebay. Maybe something I might want to consider. If anyone has any experience with them and would like to share, I'd truly appreciate it.

Thanks,
J.

I had the lester dine version. I thought it was a great lens, but I used my 60mm more often despite it being shorter. If you're using it just for macro, it's great. Anything else and it's a bit soft for my liking.

 

[jbylake]

Thanks. I did my homework, and now I remember. How odd. It (LD LENS) used to be sort of a fringe cult thing, as it was designed for dental photography, and years ago, a good Nikon, Canon, etc.. macro lens could be had for a lot less. Most of those lenses came as a kit, with a camera, ring flash, etc. and the kits were quite expensive in those days, so not much motive to buy them back then, but they were sought after by the fringe, who had the cash to spare. I googled the name, and the company is still in the business of dental photography. Apparently, there is still plenty of "fringe" buyers out there, for those older lenses if the number of them available on EBAY is any evidence. Used and in good condition they are still bringing 350 - 400 USD.
Thank you for the lead. These are really worth looking into, for myself, anyway, unless I find something else that fills the bill.

J.

 

[Derrel]

Tamron 90mm AF-SP in one model or another has been a good choice for many years; there are older, screw-drive models, and newer variants that have an in-lens focusing motor. Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 receives good reviews. Sigma 150/2.8 pre-OS and newer OS variants--beautiful imagers. Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO HSM, not too shabby, 1:1 at 18 inches from film plane.

 

[Dave442]

I picked up the Nikon 60mm G a few years ago to get a bit more into macro, deciding that I should have at least one macro lens and not always be trying reverse adapters and extension tubes.

I use a crop factor body and like having the lens a few inches from the subject, for FF I would go with the 90 to 100mm range. The 60mm is also small enough that I always carry it with me.

Also have put money into a tripod, off camera flash, stacking software and bit by bit into the endless world of macro. Easily more than what I spent on the lens.

 

[IronMaskDuval]

Thanks. I did my homework, and now I remember. How odd. It (LD LENS) used to be sort of a fringe cult thing, as it was designed for dental photography, and years ago, a good Nikon, Canon, etc.. macro lens could be had for a lot less. Most of those lenses came as a kit, with a camera, ring flash, etc. and the kits were quite expensive in those days, so not much motive to buy them back then, but they were sought after by the fringe, who had the cash to spare. I googled the name, and the company is still in the business of dental photography. Apparently, there is still plenty of "fringe" buyers out there, for those older lenses if the number of them available on EBAY is any evidence. Used and in good condition they are still bringing 350 - 400 USD.
Thank you for the lead. These are really worth looking into, for myself, anyway, unless I find something else that fills the bill.

J.

Yep, I bought mine as the completed dental kit, which I got for $100 at a pawn shop.

 

[jbylake]

J.[/QUOTE]
Yep, I bought mine as the completed dental kit, which I got for $100 at a pawn shop.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, stuff like that never happens to me...

 

[jake337]

Tamron 90mm AF-SP in one model or another has been a good choice for many years; there are older, screw-drive models, and newer variants that have an in-lens focusing motor. Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 receives good reviews. Sigma 150/2.8 pre-OS and newer OS variants--beautiful imagers. Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO HSM, not too shabby, 1:1 at 18 inches from film plane.

I second the tokina. Great lens. Has some CA wide open but nice, sharp and focuses to 1:1.

 

[jbylake]

Derrel and Jake,
I did some research, and read a review of the Tokina lens on one of the equipment review sights that I truly trust and respect. The Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 received such a glowing review, that one would expect it to come directly from Valhalla. This is from a guy who'll trash a "name" brand $2K lens in a heartbeat. And the price is unreal, if it performs as well as the review claims,
(under $400). I'm sure that not being a pro, I can overcome the limits of not having the working space of a 200mm f/2.8 macro lens.

Thanks,
J.