Suggestions 4 most bang for buck on Macro lens

[WCBike]

I'm looking for suggestions for a good macro lens for a Nikon D50. The Nikon macro lens is just too expensive.

 

[kfoster]

I'm assuming you want something for true 1:1 macros. Maybe in the 100mm range for insects and stuff. The Nikon 105mm f/2.8 is about $800. The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is about $475 and the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 is about $400.

I personally have the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and I love them. Many photographers have had good reviews of the Sigma and Tamron. They produced nice sharp photos just like the Nikons.

K

 

[thebeginning]

the sigma (105 2.8).

great lens, terrific sharpness and clarity. definitely the best bang for your buck. the 150mm is better, but it's a couple hundred bucks more. the bad thing about the 105 is it's autofocus speed and noise, which are both on the bad side. if you want something less long, that 60mm that kfoster has is a dang nice lense, it's a bit pricier though (around 450 if i remember right).

 

[forzaF1]

I LOVE my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR that I just got in today. Here is a pic of some tree bark that I snapped about an hour ago.

I would HIGHLY recommend this lens.

Good luck with your decision,

John

 

[Garbz]

Not quite sure if your camera can use AF lenses, but my recomendation would be to look towards a second hand Nikon AF 105mm f2.8 since a lot of photographers are upgrading to the new AF-S VR model.

 

[benjikan]

For my Canon kit, I use the award winning "Tamron 90 f2.8 Di" Macro lens and for my Pentax kit I use the Pentax 100 f2.8 DA lens. Both are "Brutally" sharp and highly recommended.

Ben

 

[Don Simon]

I'm another happy Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (former) owner... no hesitation recommending that. Seems like most macro primes from the usual names in the 90-105mm range are good for the money; whether you go for a Tamron, Sigma or Tokina (since you said you can't afford a Nikon) is probably a matter of slight differences and personal preference for rendition or just the feel of the lens.

 

[sabbath999]

I LOVE my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR that I just got in today. Here is a pic of some tree bark that I snapped about an hour ago.

I would HIGHLY recommend this lens.

Good luck with your decision,

John

How is the autofocusing working out for you on that? I am looking at one, but Ken Rockwell was kind of bashing the AF function (not that AF is all that important on macro stuff)

 

[forzaF1]

How is the autofocusing working out for you on that? I am looking at one, but Ken Rockwell was kind of bashing the AF function (not that AF is all that important on macro stuff)

I haven't noticed any problems with mine. I almost always agree with Ken Rockwell, but not on this issue.

 

[Silverpenguin]

the sigma (105 2.8).

great lens, terrific sharpness and clarity. definitely the best bang for your buck. the 150mm is better, but it's a couple hundred bucks more. the bad thing about the 105 is it's autofocus speed and noise, which are both on the bad side.

I'll second that, I love my Sigma 105 - although it is a bit noisy but the focus speed isn't too bad on a D2x. Fantastic lens, I have some examples of various things I've done with it but not sure if its ok to post photos (3) in here?

 

[RedDevilUK]

get yourself some extension tubes.... trust me, it will blow your mind!!

that way you have more versatility, you can make a macro from nearly any lens!!
thats what i did, and never looked back

 

[ted_smith]

I personally have the Nikon 60mm f/2.8

Me too - and it rocks. I have a Nikon D70's and a Nikon F80 and it works great with both. I read many reviews prior to pruchasing and the general opinion was that it is the best Nikon Macro lens 'bang for buck'. No dobut the longer focal models would be better still but probably more expensive without (arguably) adding as much benefit pound for pound (or dollar to dollar). They retail for about £400 in the UK brand new - get one second hand. I cannot recommend it enough.