I'm looking for a good macro lens for D750 which can also double as a portrait lens. I currently have Sigma 24-105 F4 and Nikon 85mm lenses. Price wise I would like to keep it below $1000 (ideally below $500). Since I know that I won't be using this lens a whole lot (prefer zooms) I would like to spend as minimum as possible.
I looked online and found some options that look interesting
- Sigma 105mm OS f2.8
- Tamron 90mm
- Nikon 105mm
- Sigma 150mm OS f2.8
I would appreciate your input regarding the lens selection.
It really would depend on the type of subjects you are looking to focus. I want to say 105mm since you mention you also want to do portraits.
I use a lot of Nikkor MF glass for my macro shots though I do have a dedicated Sigma 50mm f2.8 Macro.
Another cheaper way for you to macro would be with extension tubes.
Sample below using 50mm f1.8 AI lens and vivitar extension tube. This combo costed me < $100
Well you already have arguably one of the the best portrait lenses around with the Nikon 85mm, but if you want a macro lens as well, you have lots of options. The nice thing about macro lenses, is nobody really makes a bad one, they are all super sharp, some are very cheap, and they have almost no distortion.
Your original list is pretty much what I would be picking from too. You can add the Tokina 100mm in there too if you want a low cost option with excellent image quality (under $400).
If you are going to just be using it for macro, and with a tripod under fairly controlled conditions, you can quite easily get away with the cheaper options like the Tokina. If you also want to use it for portraits, action, or handheld macros/closeups I would get one with stabilization and a faster AF motor.
150mm is getting a bit long for general portraits, but that being said you still have your 85mm to fall back on, and 150mm will get you slightly better working distance for macros (about 3" more than a 105mm). It's also a bit bigger and heavier and more expensive.
In my opinion the sweet spot is with the 90/100/105mm macros. Decent working distance, not too big, lots of options, and almost all of them are under $1000. I have a Nikon 105 VR and I love it, no regrets. The VR is extremely useful since I often don't have the time to set up a tripod. You won't be doing any 1:1 macro handheld, but the AF-S and VR lets you get pretty darn close depending on the conditions. If I were to go up from the 105mm I would go all out and get the Sigma 180mm.
The Sigma 105 OS is $200 cheaper than the Nikon 105, but doesn't play as nicely with Nikon TC's and accessories. The Nikon 105 also tests better, and will hold it's value better. For the $200 I would just get the Nikon between those two.
Honestly you can't really go wrong, and some of this will depend on what you like to shoot. You will likely be impressed with any macro lens you buy if using it within it's limitations. If you just want to mess around with macro, grab the Tokina 100 for $379. Dirt cheap, competitive optics, and still has autofocus for the odd portrait. If you want more of a "do everything" lens, look at the Nikon 105VR, Sigma 105 OS or Tamron 90 VC. If you decide size, budget, etc. are less important, consider the Sigma 150 or 180.
If by best you mean 'all-around best', then I'd agree on the 105VR.
I would also not be interested in using a macro for portraits, unless you're dumping the 85.
Further, if you're looking for closeups, the wider (~50mm) macro lenses tend to do that easier, in a cheaper, smaller, and lighter package, and they respond well to being used with tubes.
The Nikon 105 VR is a great macro lens and good for portraits too -- I've used it on the d750 for a couple months now and it's great. Alternatively, you could get the 105 2.8 D lens, which is still a very good macro lens for around $350 and a 50mm with extension tubes for interesting, fun work (as mentioned, you really don't need another portrait lens). Throw in a good ring flash (Nikon r1c1 $350) and you have a good macro set up for under $1,000. By the way, you Can do 1:1 macro handheld if you know how to use flash well; it's not easy and takes practice and some luck! I haven't used any of the 3rd party macro lenses, but as others have said, they're all good optically.
Thank you for all the replies. I guess I need to do some more learning because apparently good macro cannot be a good portrait lens and vice versa. I always thought otherwise.
Anyway, portraits are not a priority and I can just use 85mm. I also have 50mm f1.8 so I like the idea of extension tubes. I will have to do more research on it.
As for what I'll be shooting, it would mostly be random bugs, plants, products. Things that people shoot when they are not putting food on the table with their photography
johnctharp wrote:
I would also not be interested in using a macro for portraits, unless you're dumping the 85.
ajamils wrote:
… apparently good macro cannot be a good portrait lens…
I would strongly disagree with that sentiment. Most macro lenses do fine double-duty for portraiture, with the following caveats… 1) they tend to show every imperfection. However, it is certainly much easier to soften detail in post than to sharpen it. 2) you lose some of the DOF control that you have with an f1.4/1.8/2.0 "portrait lens."
Neither of those are in any way serious deal breakers, and there are many, many fabulous portraits that have been shot with macro glass.
I never shoot portraits faster than f/4, and stop down to f/11 at 135mm. Macro lenses are fine for portraits, and my current choice for Nikon FX is the Sigma 70/2.8, a screwdrive 1:1 macro with superb performance and decen price.
Chris Court wrote:
I would strongly disagree with that sentiment. Most macro lenses do fine double-duty for portraiture, with the following caveats… 1) they tend to show every imperfection. However, it is certainly much easier to soften detail in post than to sharpen it. 2) you lose some of the DOF control that you have with an f1.4/1.8/2.0 "portrait lens."
Neither of those are in any way serious deal breakers, and there are many, many fabulous portraits that have been shot with macro glass.
C
Your 85/1.8G has noticeable CA at f/1.8, not so much at f/2.8. Your 105VR has noticeable CA at f/2.8. At f/2.8, the 85mm lens is sharper, and will show *more* imperfections. Essentially, if you have the 85/1.8, there is very little reason to use a 100mm macro lens for portraits.
I stand by my statement, which is largely true for any system except the new Sony(/Zeiss) FE lenses.
Macro lenses are excellent general use lenses and would do very well for portraiture, they are typically very well corrected lenses with the capability to focus down to 1:1 when needed (or close to 1:1, some macros are actually 1:2 like the zeiss 100).
The compromises you'll make getting a macro lens, is: speed compared to similar non macro primes (usually f2.8 is the fastest macros compared to f1.4/1.8/2.0 other primes), typically slower AF since the focus range is significantly longer than a non-macro lens of the same focus length. They can also be a little higher in price due to their more advanced optical correction and more specialized market.
a 105 micro is a good general use focal length, long enough to do bugs, short enough to do product work, and a good general use (and portraiture) focal length. I've owned a 150mm Sigma pre-OS macro, and currently a 200mm f4.0D Micro and 60mm f2.8G Micro. all are excellent lenses, the longer focal lengths will give you more working distance for bugs and living things, the shorter lengths will give you better working distance for product photography in a confined space...personally I wouldn't consider anything below ~90-100mm for any bugs, and wouldn't do anything longer than 105ish for portraiture and products unless you've got a significant amount of room to work in...which is, again, why I would recommend a 105 for a good all around macro lens.
most macros don't open wide enuff to give a nice blur & bokeh for backgrounds in portrait shooting - but your 85 is fine for that; otherwise a macro esp. the newer ones are xlnt portrait lenses
for products you want an older MF 55 mm macro - as the manual focus is highly desirable and it gives you plenty of working distance
for insect, you want a long focal length so you can not disturb the bug - Nikon no longer makes a zoom or a 200 mm macro - I hear the longer Sigma macros are the best
the R1C1 flash unit will change your life
a macro rail is useful also
if that does not lighten your wallet adequately, I can go on..
