What's the best Macro lens?

[JohnFlorida]

I realize 'best' is a subjective thing, but what are some of the better Macro lenses that will fit a D300?

Thanks.

 

[Orgnoi1]

Well I have experience with the three Nikon models... the 60mm, 105mm, and 200mm.... all three are excellent... and it really matters most how much working distance you want to your subject... all three will go to 1:1...

 

[Phranquey]

There are a wide variety out there, but I think your best bet for GP macro (Nikon calls them "micro") would be the 105mm f/2.8 (not the VR version, but the older one). These can be had used in good condition for about $400 to $500. The 60mm requires that you get too close to your subject, and the 200mm f/4 micro gives you far more working room, but will seriously sting your wallet at about $1200.

 

[Garbz]

The MicroNikkor 105mm f/2.8 is by far the most popular. The shorter ones require you to get close to your subject, and the longer ones compress the field of view somewhat un-naturally (for my tastes anyway) for a macro photo.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

The Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-S Nano Coat is the best. I got mine last week and it's the sharpest lens I own.

Here's my video review of it:

And here's a thread with some shots from it: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117621

And the last two shots in this thread are also from the 60mm AF-S:
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118267

Hope those resources are helpful to you. Good luck.

 

[sabbath999]

There are a wide variety out there, but I think your best bet for GP macro (Nikon calls them "micro") would be the 105mm f/2.8 (not the VR version, but the older one).

+1

 

[Trenton Romulox]

+1

That's what Ken Rockwell also says.

But Bjorn Rorslett says the new AF-S 60mm f/2.8

And I agree with Bjorn, the new 60mm is amazingly sharp, and it focuses extremely close.

 

[JohnFlorida]

Thanks, everyone!!!

 

[Phranquey]

the new 60mm is amazingly sharp, and it focuses extremely close.

Agreed, but if you read my earlier post, this can be it's own hindrance. In order to get 1:1 macro, you have to get so close that you are scaring off what you are trying to photograph in the first place.

 

[Stranger]

Why is the non VR regarded as better than the VR? (105)

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Agreed, but if you read my earlier post, this can be it's own hindrance. In order to get 1:1 macro, you have to get so close that you are scaring off what you are trying to photograph in the first place.

What if you are doing still-life?

But I agree, if you are shooting something that will be scared away, maybe the 60mm isn't the best option. But, then again, 1:1 on the longest Nikon one, the 200mm f/4 is still like, 16" away, and the lens itself is 8" or so...so yeah. It's tough to get 1:1 on a live subject with any of the macro lenses, really.

 

[TCimages]

If I were a Nikon guy I would buy the Nikon 105, but you could also consider the Sigma 105. I've seen great images from both.

Trenton - That working distance is from the front of the lens. 16" is a lot IMO. My Canon 100mm is 6 inches for minimum focus distance and it works very well.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

If I were a Nikon guy I would buy the Nikon 105, but you could also consider the Sigma 105. I've seen great images from both.

Trenton - That working distance is from the front of the lens. 16" is a lot IMO. My Canon 100mm is 6 inches for minimum focus distance and it works very well.

Really?! Whoa...then my 60mm AF-S focuses to...1.5" manually.

Holy smokes.

 

[lextalionis]

The Sigma 105 is a good alternative: http://www.motleypixel.com/reviews/index.htm?openfolder=Sigma%20Primes/Sigma%20105mm%20f2.8%20EX%20DG%20Macro/&openfile=sigma_105_f28_macro_01.jpg

-Roy