Macro lenses - which focal length?

Hello everybody

I might buy a macro lens for my Nikon D50 some time soon. Which focal length would you recommend?

Basically, the options are Micro Nikkor AF 60/2.8, Micro Nikkor AF 105/2.8, and possibly a Tamron AF 90/2.5 Macro for Nikon (used at a local store). I guess I'd be shooting flowers and butterflies most often. Which one would you recommend? Price DOES matter, unfortunately.

Has anybody any experience with the Tamron, is it any good? I've heard that some older Tamron Macros are supposed to be rather good, but I don't know which specific lens.

Alternative would be buying extension tubes - however, buying a new set of extension tubes is nearly as expensive as a used Macro lens (more than 50 % of the price for a used Nikkor 105 mm), so I don't think I'll go that route...

Thanks!

Basil

Hi Basil,
I really don't know much about Nikon or Tamron lenses. I use a Canon eos 1d mark ii and I have a Canon 180mm macro lens. I do know that when you purchase a Macro lens, you shoul buy the one that is the longest available. Sigma makes a 200mm Macro lens which is an excellent lens. I'm not sure whether they manufacture one to fit your Nikon.

Good Luck,
Gene Steinberg
Andover, NJ

Hi Basil,
I'd recommend the longest focal that you can afford - long focals give more working distance and a cleaner background.

The Sigma 180 Macro is not very expensive and it is an excellent choice IMHO

I have the Sigma 105mm which I like a lot. I agree you may want the extra focal length though. I have been very pleased with the quality and actually enjoy using it for more than just macro work. I have shot several landscapes with it and it would probably be a good portrait lens.

I have the Sigma 180 and I really like it a lot. I feel that I have already benefited from the longer focal length as the working distance is more comfortable and convenient, and I have enjoyed shooting bug pictures with it. At about $600 (USD) it is not cheap, but not as much as some alternatives either.

Nathan

Thanks everybody. I guess having more distance to easily-scared bugs really is a good thing. However, I don't think I can afford more than a 105. The Sigma 180 is 850 Euros in Europe, that's significantly more than 1000 dollars and more than twice my budget. And the Sigma 150 isn't that much cheaper, either. Well, I'll see...

Basil

Basil
I just sold a Nikon 105 macro last week I had used it for several years. I loved the lens and it was extremely sharp. But that said, I bought a Sigma 180 last year and hadn't used the 105 since. Not only does the 180 give you a little more working distance but another benefit often over looked, is the narrower angle of view. If you are shooting insects and flowers that is a huge benefit for eliminating unwanted background objects in your photos. Just my 2 cents.
Mark

This is easy. Don't buy new--buy a used Sigma 180mm macro off eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/SIGMA-180mm-f3-5-APO-MACRO-NIKON-AF-D-D50-70s-USED-WARR_W0QQitemZ7631266871QQihZ017QQcategoryZ3343QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Kent in SD

Thanks Kent. Will wait until one becomes available on eBay somewhere in Europe (I'm in Switzerland).

Basil

Basil, both Tamron macro lenses (90mm and 180 mm) are very good. You will not go wrong with it. But the 180mm is expensive. Two years ago I paid 700 Euro for a new Tamron 180mm and I like that lens. You can buy a new 2.8 /90mm Tamron macro for 390 Euro ( from www.technikdirekt.de)

Thanks, I will have a look. Costs 650 Schweizer Franken here. However, for this money, I could get a used 105 mm Nikkor... which gives me some more reach (as all the others suggested). Well, I'll think about all the options - Tamron, Nikon used, Sigma used...

Basil

Basil,

While I am a new photographer, I photograph mostly flowers and bugs - LOL. A holdover from my days as a 10 year old, I guess. I agree that a long focal length will gve you more working room, especially with butterflies.

But aside from cost, why are you reluctant to buy a good set of exension tubes? What kind of lenses are in your bag currently? I have combined my extension tubes with a 180-300 mm telephoto macro lens and achieved very good >1:1 photos with very good working distance. Forgive my ignorance if this won't apply to you at all.

My current glass is not very high quality. It's pretty low quality, rather. So I was guessing that combining this already imperfect glass with extension tubes would degrade IQ quite a bit compared to a dedicated macro lens. And since an extension tube set costs a significant fraction of a (used) macro lens, I thought I'd be served better with a macro lens.

Basil

Hi Basil
I confess I have never owned a micro lens but have photographed flowers and insects and had many published since late 60's early 70's and only ever used extension tubes. Why not buy a s/h set. I am a great believer in tubes.

Humm... I might need to reconsider, then. What's a s/h-Set?

Anyway, my glass possibly benefiting from tubes are a 55-200 4-5.6 DX Nikkor (1/3.5 "macro" capability) and an older Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 (1/4 "macro" capability) lens. Both are reasonably sharp, but of course neither very fast nor tacksharp (I'm a student and don't have the money for "big glass"). Do you think one of the lenses will work well with tubes? Example of the Sigma here: http://www.n.ethz.ch/student/bgreber/zoo04/pages/DSC_0004.html

thank you very much!

Basil

By s/h set I think Colin means 'second hand' set...or used. Tubes actually should not degrade image quality at all, there is no glass in them. They are basically just spacers to move your lens away from the film plane/sensor so that the lens focuses closer and gives you more magnification.

I owned a set of tubes once...but I found that I did not use them much with my 70-210 f4. I think I just did not give them enough of a chance, and enough patience. One thing that you lose is infinity focus. I have heard people say that they use the zoom to get close focus, then the focus ring to get it exact.

Nathan