What is the difference really?

[Markw]

I am looking for a half decent macro lens for my new D40/60. (cant decide which one Im getting) and I was wondering if there is that much of a difference in quality if I were to buy the Sigma 70-300mm Macro or the Sigma 50mm Macro in picture quality? I will only be getting one, and macro is my main goal, so which one would be best?

Mark

 

[ChrisJuliano]

Well sorry to randomly suggest another lens, but the sigma 105mm is what I suggest if you shoot insects.

I have a d40 and 105mm macro and its a lovely combo, very fun and the variety of things that the lens allows me to do is very impressive.

 

[Markw]

Its also about $200 more.

Mark

 

[ChrisJuliano]

Oh sorry, and I am sure you will be asked so I will ask now.
What do you plan to shoot with the lens?

 

[Markw]

I plan Nature Macro. Small anmals and bugs along with the occasional abstract. I will have other lenses, I just would like to pick one for Macro.

Mark

 

[ChrisJuliano]

Then you probably will want to go with the telephoto macro.

The 50mm requires you to get to close and the insect will usually fly/walk away.

I suggest asking for more advice from people who actually have the lens, I am just trying to help out from the little knowledge I know.

 

[anubis404]

Keep in mind the Siggy is not a true macro (its 2:1, not 1:1). I would suggest the Tokina 100mm F/2.8.

Also, if you don't mind me giving some advice in your camera quest, I would suggest the D70S. The D40/60 are not very durable, require you to navigate a lot of menus, and have no in body AF motor. The D70S's price is right between the two, and its a great camera for the money. I switched to a D70S from a D40, and am loving it so far.

 

[Markw]

Well thanks for your responses anyway. It does make sense what you say, and the macro feature is only available from 200-300mm ranges anyway with the telephoto macro, which is perfectly fine with me..if the pictures still turn out that is. I would love to hear more from anyone who has either one of these lenses. I was also thinking about getting a 1.4x or 2x Teleconverter to help with that and general non-mactro wildlife shots. Do you think that this is a good idea? Any advic with the Tokina mentioned above would help imensely (sp?) also.

Mark

 

[anubis404]

Sure, sorry. I forgot to provide more info:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/393445-REG/Tokina_ATXAF100PROC_100mm_f_2_8_AT_X_M100.html

Its $400, which is not to bad for a macro. Its also extremely sharp and fast (F/2.8). Nikon's macro costs twice the price, and I've heard the quality is the same. I have my eyes on one as my next lens.

 

[outlandishogle]

a little off topic but i would go for the d40 over the d60. I hated my d60 and loved my d40. i know the extra megapixles are a plus but if your not printing large you dont need them. and the d60 shoots horrible compared to the d40 in lower light conditions. just my two cents. and i got the cheap sigma telephoto macro for 70 bucks. it works good for distance and not to shabby for macro. but you have to remember it is a cheap lense and you get what you pay for but i really like it. so if your on a budget give that a whirel and if you go for the d40 put that extra money twards a better macro.

 

[Markw]

Oh okay, I think I will go with the sigma telephoto macro. Most likely. Does anyone have any macro photos taken with this lens?

Mark

 

[Overread]

Well a 2:1 macro will give you shots rather like this:

*taken with sigma 70-300mm macro*

which is fine if your shooting flowers, but for insect work you really want a 1:1 macro - and idealy one with a focal length of at least 100mm - that said shorter focal length macro is certainly possible, but trickier. Avoid the 50mm macros, most are only 2:1 and many are cheap quality lenses (Budget lines). If you must go cheap you could look at the sigma 70mm macro (said to be their sharpest lens) though I would recomend the 150mm or 180mm of their range personally - as they have internal focusing (the front does not move when you focus), they work with sigma teleconveters (that lets you get increased magnification) and have better AF motors (not really a concern with macro as this is done all in manual focusing mode, but it is a bonus when using the lens in other uses).

I have no examples from the sigma 105mm macro, as I only have a 150mm macro. However the lenses on offer - the Nikon 105mm macro, sigma 70/105/150/180mm macro and the tamron 90mm macro are all reportedly sharp and good macro lenses - its mainly a case of fitting your needs against your budget