ONE lens that'll do macro and portraits?

[DaveAndHolly219]

There are two “flavors” of lens I’ve been wanting for a while. A true 1:1 macro lens, and a fast prime lens for portraits. What I’m wondering is if there’s a lens out there that will do both, so that I can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Perhaps a 105mm f/2.8 AF-D?

The lens would be used primarily on my D7000 and occasionally on my backup D90.

Budget is somewhat flexible, but under $450 would be ideal. I typically buy used, as I like getting the most bang for my buck.

Doesn’t have to be a Nikkor. Sigma etc. is fine if the quality/price is right.

 

[Derrel]

Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 AF-SP series model is pretty good as a macro lens, and the price is affordable on the used market. It goes to 1:1 without needing an extension tube, and has a decent weight; not too heavy, not too light, balances well on the smaller, half-height camera bodies. I bought mine for $260 used, but that was a while back. This lens has been refined over the past four decades; their 90mm Superior Performance model has long been one of their best-in-brand offerings.

But honestly, I do not recommend using a macro lens as a portrait or field telephoto lens; the focusing on most is hair-trigger beyond about four feet or so, and there can be focus misses at normal "field telephoto" ranges of 10,12,15,20,25,30,50,60 feet.

The last time I took the 90 AF-SP out and decided to use it for double-duty was during cherry blossom season in downtown Portland in 2014. It missed a LOT of shots at 20,30,40 feet. Not by much, but it missed hitting focus on a number of people shots by a foot or two; I knew this too, from having owned the lens for a long time, and from using the 60mm AF-D Micro~Nikkor as a landscape lens.

Look at most AF macro lenses: they go from Infinity to 10 feet in something like a 10-degree focus ring arc, and then go from 10 feet down to 1 foot in a 240 to 270 degree arc, with very,very finely-graduated focus ring movements...great for AF or manual focus in the close-up range, but absolutely hair-trigger beyond 10 feet.

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 AF-SP series model is pretty good as a macro lens, and the price is affordable on the used market. It goes to 1:1 without needing an extension tube, and has a decent weight; not too heavy, not too light, balances well on the smaller, half-height camera bodies. I bought mine for $260 used, but that was a while back. This lens has been refined over the past four decades; their 90mm Superior Performance model has long been one of their best-in-brand offerings.

But honestly, I do nor reccommend using a macro lens as a portrait or field lens; the focusing on most is hair-trigger beyond about four feet or so, and there can be focus misses at normal "field telephoto" ranges of 10,12,15,20,25,30,50,60 feet.

The last time I took the 90 AF-SP out and decided to use it for double-duty was during cherry blossom season in downtown Portland. It missed a LOT of shots at 20,30,40 feet. Not by much, but it missed hitting focus on a number of people shots by a foot or two; I knew this too, from having owned the lens for a long time, and from using the 60mm AF-D Micro~Nikkor as a landscape lens.

Look at most AF macro lenses: they go from Infinity to 10 feet in something like a 10-degree focus ring arc, and then go from 10 feet down to 1 foot in a 240 to 270 degree arc, with very,very finely-graduated focus ring movements...great for AF or manualk focus in the close-up range, but absolutely hair-trigger beyond 10 feet.

Makes sense. I guess each bird needs their own stone in this situation!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

I just don't want to steer you wrong on this, and make you think that an f/2.8 macro lens behaves the same as an f/1.4 or f/1.8 field telephoto lens does; the macro is designed to be the best lens for close-in work. The 85mm field telephoto type lens is designed for portraits, sports, travel images, and is not optimized for close-up work. The focusing issues at 6,7,8,9,10,15,20,out to 60 feet...that's where the macro lens can bite you at times. Aim the lens at a subject at 50 feet away, drop an AF square on that, and shoot a shot, or two, or three, then return home, and find that the AF bracket was mis-aimed ever-so-slightly, or that the focus system said "close enough!" and you wind up with a MISSED-focus shot that was almost impossible to see while shooting.

Here's a good example of two of four MISSED focus 90mm macro shots, done at f/6.3 on the D3x. Focus is FRONT, by about 3 to 4 feet! Look closely at the shadows on the ground. The focus is like 4 feet in front of the man.

Focus is in front of the target. Look at the fence's shadows on the ground. The AF-C system seemed

to have locked a good focus! On both shots, the lens could not get the perfect focus point at a distance of probably 60 feet away; this is the range where the macro lens seems to be very marginal at critical focusing. Lots of misses that "Seem like good focus" when out shooting. Again, LOOK at the 3-4 feet in FRONT of my target! VERY sharp! The man himself? Not so sharp!

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

I should add, I shoot a lot more portraits than I do macro. Should I be focusing on a nice prime for portraits and then couldn't I just add an extension tube to perhaps my 50mm for when the need for macro arises?

 

[Derrel]

I think so, I think focusing on getting a good 85mm prime makes sense. Slap a Kenko 12mm or 20mm extension tube on that 85mm lens, or use the Canon 500D close-up lens on a 70-200/2.8, or get some "other solution" for macro shooting.

Many people like a zoom for portraits, and the zoom gives focal length flexibility.

 

[pixmedic]

your most likely going to use manual focus for macro anyway.
I used focusing rails.
pick up an older nikkor ais macro lens.

 

[Timppa]

I think if you want to get 1 lens for both, you need to check what you photograph the most.

If you shoot most MACRO, you get a MACRO lens. When you do portraits with it sometimes, you make sure to take enough pictures to delete bad outcomes.
if you shoot most PORTRAIT, you get a PORTRAIT lens. When you do macro, you put extension tubes on it. It will take a bit more handling and practising, but you can make it.

 

[Dave442]

I'll take my 60mm f/2.8G lens out just walking around when I expect there to be some subjects for macro, and then for the ocasional portrait or landscape shot.

I've shot the 85mm f/1.8 and the macro side by side and for portrait the 85mm is a much better option. I would just recommend picking up the one you would use more now and then in a year or two get the other lens.

 

[greybeard]

I know that the AF-S VR 105 micro is out of your price range but, I've used mine for everything from Macro to sports photography. No complaints.

 

[nerwin]

I'd seriously look at Tokina's 100 2.8 macro. It's within your budget, its sharp and works well for portraits!

 

[fmw]

The statement that macro lenses are designed for optimized close up performance is true. The design characteristic is called a flat field. That means that the macro lenses are better corrected at the edges of the image circle to reduce the effects of the front element curvature at close distances. Nothing about a flat field produces anything negative at longer distances. The flat field of the macro lens will cause no compromise in making a portrait. You can buy a macro lens and use it at infinity focus with complete confidence. The only disadvantage of the true macro lens is that it is normally more expensive than a regular short telephoto.

 

[greybeard]

One of the reasons I like the Nikon 105mm micro is that it has VR which makes it much easier to handhold for bug closeups and or any other type of hand held shooting.

 

[DaveAndHolly219]

The statement that macro lenses are designed for optimized close up performance is true. The design characteristic is called a flat field. That means that the macro lenses are better corrected at the edges of the image circle to reduce the effects of the front element curvature at close distances. Nothing about a flat field produces anything negative at longer distances. The flat field of the macro lens will cause no compromise in making a portrait. You can buy a macro lens and use it at infinity focus with complete confidence. The only disadvantage of the true macro lens is that it is normally more expensive than a regular short telephoto.

The other thing I've heard thrown around is that macro lenses tend to have slower AF. Doesn't seem like a big problem for portraits though, unless it's a kid moving all over the place or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fmw]

The statement that macro lenses are designed for optimized close up performance is true. The design characteristic is called a flat field. That means that the macro lenses are better corrected at the edges of the image circle to reduce the effects of the front element curvature at close distances. Nothing about a flat field produces anything negative at longer distances. The flat field of the macro lens will cause no compromise in making a portrait. You can buy a macro lens and use it at infinity focus with complete confidence. The only disadvantage of the true macro lens is that it is normally more expensive than a regular short telephoto.

The other thing I've heard thrown around is that macro lenses tend to have slower AF. Doesn't seem like a big problem for portraits though, unless it's a kid moving all over the place or something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Macro lenses do have a long focus range but we are talking about differences of milliseconds when compared to regular lenses. I had a Micro Nikkor 40mm f2.8 G for a while. I didn't like the optical performance of the lens but it was a lightning fast focuser. There are some macro lenses (Nikon 60mm f2.8D for instance) that succumb to focus hunting but that isn't really indicative of focus speed. I would choose one of these over the 40mm every time.