"There are really no bad macro's on the market so just grab one in your price range and go for it"
Man, I really want to just pull the trigger on one of these. However, if I do buy one, and it turns out that there was a better option available...
General consensus seems to be that most macro lens are sharp, so I suppose I'd be able to take good shots with any of these lens after learning how to handle my camera
P1kas wrote:
General consensus seems to be that most macro lens are sharp, so I suppose I'd be able to take good shots after learning how to handle my camera
Macro is very challenging of technique, more so than most other kinds of photography. A solid tripod/head is probably more important than the slight differences between the three used lenses you've narrowed it down to.
Hmmm...I would recommend the older Tamron 90 f2.8 non-VC version. Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Di SP MACRO 1:1
You can get one on Ebay, imported version, for about $300 or less. Maybe with one year warranty from the seller or only getting the Canadian warranty if buying from a Canadian seller. I owned it briefly. Solid and sharp lens with an OK AF speed. Not FAST. It gets you 1:1 ratio without extension tube. Is light and smaller.
lorac wrote:
For the 100mm range with macro lenses, you can't go wrong the Nikon 105mm f2.8, Tokina 100mm, Tamron 90mm, all excellent. Manual focus is preferred by many for static subjects with macro work, but it's nice to have AF as an option when using the lens for more general purpose. I'm not currently up on used prices, but I believe you should be able to get any of those mentioned for $300 or under, depending on condition.
If you were receptive to AIS or had a larger budget I'd have other suggestions as well, but these three are solid for that focal length. ...Show more →
Add the Sigma 105 macro to the list. Every bit as good as the others. Beewn using mine for ages. I bought mine when I was still shooting film in my N80. One necessity is a tripod. You will quickly learn it is all but impossible to hand hold a macro shot. I got this tripod for tabletop light box macros. It is actually very stable. It only gets a foot or so high but works a treat for me. Please note I said table top; light box macro.
P1kas wrote:
I understand that these macro lenses can also be pretty good for portrait pictures? What about landscapes?
1) yep, it's in the right range for headshots, perhaps slightly long on a crop sensor, but you can step back for a larger subject. 2) sure, if you want that focal length. Sharp, and generally flat field.
The only catch about a macro lens is that it isn't optimized for bokeh. My 105mm AF-S is fine for portrait, but doesn't have that undefinable (at least to me) "lovely" quality for the out of focus elements. But only photographers notice that stuff!
---------------------------------------------
P1kas wrote:
I have a tripod ready, but I suppose a focusing rail would be a good investment
Focus rail: not necessary, but saves time (time used to tap the tripod or subject back and forth). For example, a Manfrotto 454, or the used RRS rack-and-pinion rail I'll be posting for sale shortly. I believe "cheap-ass" focus rails aren't worth the money: I'd rather tap the tripod legs
---------------------------------------------
P1kas wrote:
Can't I freely change my aperture to manipulate depth of field without losing focus? I understand that too wide an aperture at super close ranges would result in a blurry mess, but don't quite understand how focus relates to aperture in lens that do not maintain constant aperture throughout the focus range.
At close range, the effective widest f-stop is narrower (slower) than your lens says. For example, my 105mm f/2.8 is, at 1:1, something like f/4.5 - because the internals move forwards, in effect acting like an extension tube. Don't sweat it, you'll almost always want f/8 to f/22 for macro to have enough DOF.
At "normal" ranges, you'll get your f/2.8 back.
---------------------------------------------
bthebert wrote:
I'm not aware of any lenses on which the aperture changes as you focus. As you ZOOM and change the focal length, sure. But I'm unaware of any relationship between aperture and focus distance.
See previous.
---------------------------------------------
Take your time in choosing and maybe just get a cheap set of extension tubes for $10 or so while you look and use those with any current lenses you have?
There are plenty of macros that will work well but as with all old lenses, getting something that may well be third or fourth hand and had a hard life can be a lottery.
A particular lens may have an excellent reputation and a good copy may well be equal to that but if the one you get has been abused and mistreated it wont matter at all if other copies are great.
The older the lens the greater the chance that a once great copy is out a bit too.
Maybe just do a search on the likes of Ebay for "lens Nikon macro" ending soonest with your maximum budget and see what comes along?
To do what you want, the Nikon 85mm micro for DX is perfect, and within your budget. It does have vr, goes to 1:1 but of course micro shots are better with tripod, and using manual focus, and not using the vr.
It also makes a fair portrait lens.
It will autofocus on your camera, if you chose to use it for other than micro. That's when the vr will help.
Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF ~$250(Used)
-No autofocus, but does allow for light metering and EXIF data on my body.
Nikon 105 F2.8 AI/AI-S ~$150-180 (Used)
-No autofocus, EXIF data or light metering on my body. Requires an extension tube for 1:1 magnification ratio.
Tokina 100mm ~$130(Used) + m42 adapter cost(?)
-No autofocus, EXIF data or light metering on my body.
Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP ~$300(New)
-Autofocus, EXIF Data, and Metering all work with my body. Slightly shorter focal length.
Sigma 105mm EX ~$250(Used)
-No autofocus with my body,but does allow for light metering and EXIF data.
Nikon 85mm Micro DX ~$300(Used)
-Autofocus, EXIF and metering work. Has Vibration Reduction for non-macro use. Not suitable for full frame cameras, should I decide to upgrade in some years.
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG HSM ~$350(Used)
-Slightly over my budget. Focal length larger than other options, supports exif, autofocus, and metering.
-Effective Focal Length of 225 on my D5300, which may be too much to photograph my cats indoors.
"Used Sigma 150 Macros should sell for around $600 or so used. It is a superb lens."
Kind of leaning towards this option.. Though it does not cost that much. Someone is selling for about $350, so I'll have to stretch the budget. Hopefully it ends up being worth it
P1kas wrote:
"Used Sigma 150 Macros should sell for around $600 or so used. It is a superb lens."
Kind of leaning towards this option.. Though it does not cost that much. Someone is selling for about $350, so I'll have to stretch the budget. Hopefully it ends up being worth it
At that price for the Sigma 150 APO 2.8, I would make sure it is not damaged and doesn't have fungus or had water damage ETC as the lens usually does go for a fair bit more.
If it IS a good one then grab it as the lens is very nice for both macro and as a mid tele lens.
"Do you want to take Macro shots or just close-ups?"
I plan to do both. Autofocus for me is really not a necessity, but would be nice to have for using the lens for longer range pics(I only have an 18-55 kit lens)
You had asked about aperture changing as you focus, basically when focus closer, you are moving the lens further from the camera body. At 1:1, you have basically doubled the lenses distance from the camera.
So the image from the lens is larger, and you get less light on the sensor. 2 stops for 1:1, about 1 stop for 1:2, darker.
Also nikon has an older 55mm that adjusts the aperture and stays at the set aperture on the lens as you focus closer.
I'd recommend an af lens. AF is a really big deal, imo, for hh. I push the shutter button down, and hope it will lock and fire before I move. Get a lens that is compatible with your camera, imo. Not having af and a meter is a potential pain, although I do use old alts a lot. But you need to use live view or an EVF, it's hard to focus just looking through a dslr
I saw a 150 sigma on keh.com for a bit over $300, I think it was canon. But you might check their site.
I like the longer fl , although I feel like a higher ss is necessary hh. More room between you and the subject, great for bugs.
I'd recommend an af lens. AF is a really big deal, imo, for hh. I push the shutter button down, and hope it will lock and fire before I move.
[...]
People who have resource constraints need to make compromises. For the OP, that means no AF.
Somehow (and yes, we had proper split-screen focus aids, etc.) we all managed in the pre-AF era, even for sports photography. Manual focus is okay, although less convenient than AF, on static or slow-moving subjects.
kaplah wrote:
People who have resource constraints need to make compromises. For the OP, that means no AF.
Somehow (and yes, we had proper split-screen focus aids, etc.) we all managed in the pre-AF era, even for sports photography. Manual focus is okay, although less convenient than AF, on static or slow-moving subjects.
But the op should be able to afford a lens that is compatible with their camera for $300. I much prefer having a meter, as well.
And it was a LOT easier to focus a film SLR, with matte and split image focusing aids. Dslr's are hard, just looking through an optical vf.
