Macro lens

I'm new to digital photography and I'm in the market for a good macro lens. I'm a graduate student so money is definitely a limiting factor. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good macro lens for a D40X? What do I need to look for in a macro lens? Are there some reputable spots I can check out used equipment on the internet?

Mike, I'm a Canon shooter but I shoot a fair amount of macro, and one key factor to take into account is working distance from the subject.

As a floral photographer with no interest in butterflies, for example, a person can get away with a 50-60mm macro, which is less expensive and requires closer-in work to achieve the scale most macro shooters want. In between are the macros in the 90-100mm range, which allow the shooter to stay a bit farther away. For those who need as much working distance as possible, the 150-180mm group is the best answer.

And, of course, the prices of these macro lenses can start at over $200 for a good brand at the low focal length end and run well over $1,000 for one at the high end. I shoot a Canon 100mm macro because I want a bit of working distance and can't afford Canon's 180mm. Also, however, if you're frequently working in cramped quarters, a 180mm might require too much working distance for you to get the shot.

I don't know the non-OEM macros that well, nor do I know Nikon macros at all, but I hear very good things about Tamron's and Sigma's pro lines of macro lenses ranging from 70mm to 180mm, and Tamron is now offering some pretty significant rebates.

Also, if you have a fixed focal length non-macro lens that allows you to focus fairly close right now, you can buy extension tubes, which are hollow tubes that still transmit data from camera to lens through the contacts but push the lens farther from the camera, allowing closer focus and more apparent magnification. Because they are hollow they don't introduce another piece of glass between the subject and sensor, like a teleconverter does, and so they don't compromise image quality. Using tubes will not allow you to focus at a distance, however.

You should get quite a few replies here, and particularly from the macro and floral folks who make most of their living with these lenses, but that's a start.

Tokina's 100mm and Tamron's 90mm are both supposed to be very good macro lenses, but at least in the case of the Tokina, it is nearly the same price as the Canon 100mm. ($400) The Nikon 105 VR is supposed to be excellent, but I don't know what the price is.

Mel-

100mm range is ideal for our needs, but we own a couple of 55's and a 200 as well. The latter three almost never get used. As for which brand, Idunno. My 105 Nikkor is an old original manual focus model, and it's beyond doubt the sharpest lens I own. if you don't need AF, you might pick up a used MF model like mine for less than any new AF, and it's hard to imagine that they would be as sharp, much less any sharper.

You know, Hank, that's an angle that hadn't ocurred to me. I know Nikkor has been making excellent glass far longer than Canon, but I'll bet there are old Canon manual focus prime macro lenses out there that are sharper than the modern AF models. And they'd be oh-so-affordable now.

Not that I'll give up the 100 f2.8 macro. Focuses like lightning, quite sharp and makes a nice mid-range fast-action portrait lens, too. Geez, guess if I find an old FD prime macro that's one more lens I'm going to have to find room for in my kit.

What are you wanting to photo? If general subjects and flowers, the Tamron 90mm (used off eBay) would be an excellent value. If you want to photo skittish insects, you might need at least a 180mm Sigma. Note that few (if any) macro lenses are "S" (or HSM) lenses. The D40 will not AF with a non-S lens. This means they will be manual focus only. In reality, you end up doing manual focus anyway, so this isn't a big deal.


Kent in SD

Steve,

Using old lenses on high density sensors is a hit or miss proposition, and the image quality cannot be predicted by the performance of the lens on film. Older designs which looked fine on film may show exaggerated chromatic abberation, field curavture, or simply insufficient resolution to project a sharp image on a 10 mp sensor. The only way to ascertain that the combo works is to test the individual lens on the body. Interestingly enough, longer focus lenses that were designed for film tend to not work as nicely on >8 mp digital sensors, while the opposite is often the case for shorter lenses.

Even though Mike is currently using a 6 mp camera, he has made the decision to go dslr vs p&s, so it not unlikely he will be upgrading the body at some point, so getting a lens that can work on one of those even though it works OK on the d40 might be a little bit harder, since he doesn't have it yet.

Cheaper macro lenses will use internal focusing "tricks" to get the lens to focus closer, namely, reducing the focal length at the close end. A 150 mm lens will effectively become a 100-110 mm lens at 1:1. This is less of an issue with OEM prime lenses. This usually does not have a negative impact on the image quality, only the working distance.

If budget is a concern, Tamron and Sigma make excellent macro prime lenses. I have experience witht the 90 mm Tamron and the 150 mm Sgima and can vouch for their image quality, with a minor reservation on the Sigma - the out of focus areas when stopped down tend to be "nervous" in spite of the nine blade diaphragm. Using the lens wide open gives better, less distracting backgrounds.

While VR and HSM or USM focusing motors are nice additions, if the lens is being used exclusively for close work both features are of limited usefulness. As Kent points out, at close distances it is always advisable to use a tripod and focus by moving the camera back and forth rather than adjust the focus, which changes the magnification and is inherently less precise.

The focal length you use is dictated by your subject matter. Wildlife close ups outdoors require maximum working distance, so a 150 mm should be considered a minimum length. Indoor, on a table or using a copy stand, and you'll find a 50 mm to be more than adequate. You should avoid "macro zooms" since they will never give you the magnification possible with a prime, and will only produce images of acceptable quality.

Mike,,,,,,As already stated, the biggest factor in this decision is the type of subject you would like to shoot. Most "prime" macro lenses are very sharp, no matter the manufacturer. The big difference will be build quality. This past spring I bought a Sigma 180mm from KEH and I've been very happy with both the image quality and build of the lens. You may be able to find used gear cheaper, but they do have a return policy in case you are not happy with the purchase.

I've been very pleased with my Sigma 105 macro. I use it for landscapes as well as macro. Great lens.

Thanks, Gene, I'd figured it would be something like that, and will definitely plan not to buy it unless I can try it.

Ditto what Alice said regarding the Sigma 105mm. I've used mine for quite a few years now, on both film and digital cameras and have not once regretted buying it.

If you have a decent lens now, I'd look at extension tubes as a less expensive and very versatile means of doing macro photography. Contrary to what Steve wrote, you don't need to use a prime lens, but whether prime or zoom, it should be a decent lens. (I use a tube on my 50-500 zoom from time to time, and I like the extra versatility that the zoom/tube combo gives. I also use the tube on my 300/2.8 prime, and it's not nearly as easy to use on the prime. IMHO, of course.)

-Paul

Sorry, Paul, didn't mean to word it as though you can't use tubes on zooms. I've done that a number of times, but have found using tubes and my long 100-400L zoom somewhat complicated, while I've found using my primes and tubes easy.

Hi Mike i have the Sigma 150 apo macro DG HSM F2.8 and it's brilliant there are 3 settings on the focus limiter a great lens hood and a sturdy tripod collar it works great with my D70 and my D200 one of the best lenses i have ever bought good look with the hunt

Your intended use of the len will make some difference in the focal length purchased. If you will be outdoors a lot, shooting skittish insects such as anything that ends in "fly", you'll probably want the longest macro lens you can afford, even with a digital body. The main reason is working distance. A lot of insects will leave immediately if you get near them with a 50 mm lens. The extra working distance gives you space to avoid scaring them. A second reason is control of the background. A longer lens takes in far less of the background than a shorter one and it is a lot easier to get that single color blur you often see in macro shots.

On the other hand, if you will be using it primarily indoors, such as conservatories and studio settings, I'd give a lot more thought to a shorter lens such as one in the 90-105 mm range, especially if you are shooting digital with one of the APS sized sensors. (Okay, I see that is the case from your note, but others are probably reading this as well). The main reason I am making this suggestion is that I have often found, when working with my 180 macro and a 1.6 cropping body, that there simply isn't enough space to back up. I have take a lot of full frame and tighter butterfly shots, and flower shots, simply because a 180 x 1.6 = 288 mm is just too close to work with indoors and that is my only compositional choice.

Even with a cropping body, I would avoid lenses in the 50 mm range for nature macro photographer, especially insects. They are great lenses, but you'll be too close and find yourself scaring your subjects away far too often.

For manufacturer, money aside, I'd stay with the lenses made by your camera manufacturer. Long term compatibility is the best reason. But having said that, budget considerations are probably as important in the real world. For that, one good thing about the current batch of macro lenses is that there really are no bad lenses out there, assuming you are buying from a reputable company. Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all make excellent macros. Of these, probably the best third party brand is Sigma. From all of the reviews I have read in the last couple of years, Sigma usually sticks out as the best of the three for macros. The 150 2.8 is supposed to rival the Canon 180 for quality, with some reputable reviewers actually saying that it is slightly better. I own the 180 - this is high praise!

Whichever lens you buy, make sure it has a tripod collar or that one is available. Until you sart using it, you won't appreciate how useful that is!

Enjoy the lens, whichever one you pick!

Sorry, Paul, didn't mean to word it as though you can't use tubes on zooms. I've done that a number of times, but have found using tubes and my long 100-400L zoom somewhat complicated, while I've found using my primes and tubes easy.

There are two schools of thought on this.

This is my point of view: A tube has more effect on a shorter length of lens than on a longer lens. This means two things: the minimum focus distance is closer to the front of the lens, and the maximum focus distance (which is not infinity when a tube is used) gets closer to the minimum focus distance. When I put a 25mm tube on my 50-500, and zoom to 50mm, the subject must be very close to the lens, and the focus ring is essentially useless--focussing must be done by moving the camera/lens back and forth. At 500mm, however, there is substantial working distance, and the maximum focus distance is quite far off (relatively). By having the zoom, I have access to everything between those two extremes. I set up for a shot by framing the image first, and then I can focus it using both the zoom control and the focus control. This is especially useful at close range (i.e., with the zoom at shorter lengths)--with a prime at close range you have to focus by moving the camera back and forth, while with the zoom, I can focus with the zoom control. I move the camera only for framing, or to substantially change the subject size in the frame. It does add complexity, but I like the flexibility and the reduced need to move the camera. I find using the tube on my 300 is harder for me, since I have to at a very specific distance from the subject.

But I didn't have a prime lens when I got my tube, so I got used to using it with the zoom first. I suppose if you're used to using it with a prime, the zoom would seem harder.

-Paul

Another thing I should add to my reply: for those Canon owners out there who are considering their first macro lens - DON'T even consider the 65mm 1x-5x macro. It is a great lens, but not the way you want to learn macro work. It is an unbelievably specialized lens, probably even more so than a 600 mm lens. If you have to ask if it is the right lens for you, it is not. When you reach a point where you need that lens, you'll know it.

some good advice already...90mm tamron is a wonderful lense indeed. sigma 180 or 105 is also a good choice.

I've only scanned through the replies, and I've seen a lot of non-HSM lenses recommended (Sigma 105, Tamron 90, Tokina 100).

THESE WILL NOT AF WITH THE D40X!

Ok, after spelling it out in bold letters, it should be clear. Another issue, besides the focal length choice that is discussed above extensively, is whether you want/require AF, or not. Most macro shooters say they use MF a lot, I do so too, at times, but IMO, you should get a lens that is capable of AF if you need it. Which reduces the lens list to the Nikon 105/2.8 and the Sigma 150/2.8 and 180/3.5. Not cheap, unfortunately. But good.

For reviews, see http://www.photozone.de .

Basil

frankly, howmany times do you use AF while using macro lense?

Some time ago I put together a system around Canon's then-new D30 (yeah, it was a while ago) and six lenses, including both their 50 and 100mm macros. I used the 100 to illustrate a how-to book (hundreds of macro shots), a bunch of closeup product shots in the studio, and a selection of wildflower shots for an educational project.

Ended up selling the whole works to a friend, and months later he commented on how well the 100's autofocus worked.

Huh?

I didn't even know it was AF!

The point being, individual uses and styles will differ dramatically. I never used the outfit in AF, yet he uses it only in AF.

Nice point, Hank!

Every lens I've ever owned in the Canon system has been USM/HSM (except my new TS-E lens, which is of course manual focus). I never turn the AF off. I have AF set to the * button instead of the shutter button, so if I choose to override (or simply not activate) the AF, it's easy to do. I do use AF in taking macro shots--sometimes I use it to fine tune my MF, or sometimes the other way around. (I also like to see if the camera's AF can verify my MF on the TS-E lens by flashing one or more focus points red--often it can, sometimes it can't...)

-Paul

On macro stuff, I'm with Hank. My macro work with the 100 f2.8 is manual focus. But it DOES double nicely as a tight portrait lens in some situations, and when I'm shooting action portraits of people with it, I need that autofocus.

There's been a lot of good suggestions so far. I would look to a good 100mm to 105mm macro lens. I have built my macro kit around a 100mm Canon macro lens. I add tubes when I need to get closer and higher magnifications, I'll add diopter lenses for higher mags and no light loss, and I will add teleconverters when I need to get longer working distances. Contrary to common belief, teleconverters used at macro magnifications have negligible effects on image sharpness. By starting with a good 100mm to 105mm macro lens you can easily adjust the "add ons" to meet nearly every macro need. Also, a manual focusing lens works just fine for true macro work as you will set image magnification with the focusing ring and you'll focus the image by moving the camera/lens back and forth as necessary. You don't need no stinkin' autofocus, mano!

Prashant - well, I use AF sometimes when it's more a close-up than a macro shot, and of course for those rare portrait occassions (the 105/2.8 VR is a great macro that doubles as nice portrait lens thanks to very good bokeh). So, I wouldn't want to miss AF on my lens... but I understand what you're saying. You have a point there.

Basil

Mike,

I should have responded to this earlier. In our bag, we have only one true macro, the 60mm Nikkor f/2.8. When we got back into photography 9 years ago, instead of purchasing a 50mm "normal" lens, we bought the 60mm Nikkor Micro. My wife uses her AF-S 300mm F/4 with a TC-E 1.4 as a lazy person's macro. Except when trying to get 1:1, it is more than adequate.

Working length is important with a macro. Many times I wish we had a longer lens, either the 105 or 200mm. The one time I was glad to only have the 60mm was when photographing 4 Carolina Wrens in a drawer on an outside sink. With the 60mm, I was able to put the lens at the opening of the drawer. With a longer lens, I would have had to back up which in turn would have caused framing and lighting problems. In addition, the 60mm worked as a prime "normal" lens when we shot with film and as a moderate telephoto with the digital.

If you have a 50mm normal lens, then go for the 105. As mentioned above, it will also make a very good portrait lens. As far as auto-focus, we almost never use it when doing serious macro work. The only reason I say "almost" is that we may have used auto-focus once or twice many years ago.

I have Canon lenses. I am on my second Canon 100mm Macro Lens. The earlier version
had a bad defect. The focus moved when the camera was pointed toward the ground. All of the early models had the problem. Because of my experience with this problem, it would be the very 1st think that I would look for with a macro lens.

Art L.

Macro lenses are designed to have minimum chromatic aberration, totally flat field, extreme sharpness from corner to corner, and will focus, without tubes, to 1:1. They are highly specialized lenses that deliver the finest images possible where your camera is less than 2 ft from the subject. While tubes on a 50-500 or any other zoom lens might get you close to your subject, you cannot achieve the same level of quality as a prime macro. Not to mention the fact that you do not have the subject isolating properties of a large lens opening, usually betweem F2 to F3.5.

The fact that a lens like the Sigma 150 F2.8 or the Sigma 180 F3.5 have HSM not only make it possible to use them on a D40, it also extends their use, as others have noted, to other applications. I have successfully used my 150 for sports photography which is possible due to the focus limiter which limits focus to subjects that are between .52 m to infinity. It's sharpness exceeds that of a Nikon 80-200 2.8, one of Nikon's sharper zooms at wider openings and is equal in IQ at 5.6 and smaller.

I purchased my 150 used for $500 - but it was a mint copy. Luckily this lens does not suffer from the Sigma quality control issues that other designs do, so I felt fairly confident in making my purchase. The range I've seen recently is from $425-$525 for a nice used one, which makes it reasonably affordable.

I am surprised this thread has not brought up the multi element close up lens filter, that will give you excellent image quality when used with a good lens that is stopped down to F8 or more. Canon makes a 250D and a 500D that will give you much higher magnification than tubes, and without the corresponding light loss. Certainly worth considering, but they are not inexpensive.

Mike,

My experience with autofocus has mostly just been aggrevating. I shoot the Canon 100mm and a 30D or Rebel XTI. I would say I've lost more images of pretty much everything I shoot to autofocus than all other causes combined. Low light, a blade grass, a black bird, a moving pheasant all seem to be more than the AI alogithms in my cameras can handle. Things just get worse when I try to get the DOF I want in a macro shot. I have no idea how anyone successfully does macro with autofocus enabled. I'm sure many people do but it's beyond my capabilities. With the exception of flight shots, I now leave the autofocus disabled on my lenses as a matter of course. And it aint like my eyesight is all that good these days.