Which macro lens would you select

<p>So if you were thnking of a marco lens which of the 3 lenses would you choose and why - I'd like to keep the list to these three;<br />Bugs and flowers would not be the number 1 reason for the lens - more for objects and things - with a few flowers here and there -<br>

** Nikon 105mm 2.8 D (non VR)<br>

** Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR<br>

** Sigma 150mm HSM OS<br>

thoughts and thanks</p>

 

<p>Which camera? if a "full frame" the 200 f4, lots of working distance, also a good tripod for any of them.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>between the three, I'd get the first one. I don't need VR in a micro lens, and don't want to pay for it, and there'd probably be a good used deal on it.</p>

<p>But for flowers, I get a lot of mileage on DX out of the manual focus AI 55mm f3.5 micro, which can be found (as can the f2.8 version) for VERY cheap.</p>

<p>You might want to take a look at the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens on the used market. Easily as good as the AF-d and superb for non-macro work too with creamy bokeh. I know .... I have both of them.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/282-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-test-report--review</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/223-micro-nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report">http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/223-micro-nikkor-af-105mm-f28-d-review--lab-test-report</a></p>

<p>and read to the bottom ....<br>

<a href="http://bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm">http://bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm</a></p>

<p>Do you have an existing zoom lens (like the kit zooms that are bundled in with some cameras)? You can use something like an 18-105 to see what focal length(s) are actually useful to you. I use a DX-format body, and find that even a 60mm macro lens is <em>too long</em> for certain types of uses. I would be completely unable to use a 105mm lens for some of what I shoot (certainly jewelry items, or plates of foot, etc., would have me shooting from far enough away to be either logistically awkward or to be creating a perspective that doesn't serve the subject matter). <br /><br />It will help if you mention which format body you're using and/or intend to use, and what sort of working distance you have in mind for what size objects. It does matter! You might be better served by a lens you're not even considering.</p>

<p>I would go with #1. That's what I chose a few months ago anyway.<br>

Reasons:<br>

- Can be found quite cheap on the used market. I paid $350 for a like new unit.<br>

- Smaller.<br>

- Can be used with manual extension tubes such as Nikon's PK 11a-12-13 and PN-11. It has the aperture ring. The Nikon VR version looses the ring so you are stuck to use AF rings that Nikon doesn't make. Available AF rings from 3rd parties are flimsy IMHO.</p>

<p>couple other questions -<br>

* the metz wireless ring flash looks nice - anyone using these or are they a waste of money<br>

* how about using a 1.4 extender with the nikon 2.8 D -</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>For objects and things, I would not get these, but either the 40mm f/2.8 (DX) or the 60mm f/2.8 (on FX and DX). The working distance is not that much of a worry on things that do not move, and these lenses are much cheaper, and personally, I think the perspective of a wider angle lens works a bit better in many of these cases.</p>

<p>I know you did not want to see the list changed, but well, I think to shoot something like coins or small jewelry, a 105mm is way too long, let alone a 150mm lens.</p>

<p>The longer the working distance, the easier it is to properly light a subject. You really need a tripod for any lens being used at ratios of 2:1 to 1:1 to minimize motion blur from camera movement, and VR won't help if the camera is moving towards and away from the subject when being hand held.</p>

 

<p>I'd get #1 (I've owned it for years along with 2 other macro lenses) - just based on price/performance. In fact, I'd get a good used copy. Unfortunately, you haven't provided much information so that people can give you specific advice which might be more relevant to your needs. I personally use both 90-105mm macro lenses and 50mm ones, depending on the subject.</p>

<p>I picked up a 105/4.0 AI with the corresponding extension tube after realizing that when shooting macro on a tripod, VR, AF and f/2.8 wouldn't do anything. It's a very good and inexpensive lens.</p>

<p>The Sigma would be my choice for the extra working distance as well as the ability to use it indoors at sporting events in a dual purpose role. </p>

<p>#1 for me too, though a manual version would work fine too. I use the aperture ring too much with macro work to give it up to a newer G type lens (which I think the VR is?).</p>

<p>One man, one opinion.<br /> I`d choose the 105VR. Specially if <em>"Bugs and flowers would not be the number 1 reason for the lens - more for objects and things"</em>, then I`d favour versatility. This lens with VR is a "compact" short tele (compared to a 70-200/2.8 zoom), great for almost whatever, from product shots to portraiture. Macro performance on the D700 is reasonably good. It`s not a telescopic displacement design but a fixed lenght IF design, great for ring type flash heads, which I find -practical-. Don`t know the teleconverter issue, but I`d not be surprised if results were simply bad.<br /> As another option I second Matt`s opinion; a 60AFS could be interesting, too. <br /> If you want a <em>dedicated</em> macro "specialist", my opinion will differ.</p>

<p>I recommend the 60/2.8 AF-S Micro. I use it for repro and product shoots on my D300 - great lens. Good for portraits and low-light work too!</p><div></div>

<p>My answer may be unhelpful... I have the 55 /3.5 which is great for product shots of medium size (so there's some distance from the object) It's a great lens, as many have said, and costs $75 or such. I have the 105mm D, which is super sharp and gives great working distance on my d90. I used it for shooting a speaker the other day, in mediocre light, but found the focus loud, and a few times it racked back and forth, which was loud and embarrassing, not to mention causing some missed shots, so I switched to manual focus. I'm trying to use the lens as both a macro lens and a telephoto (I don't have a fast tele zoom.) So following that experience I sucked it up and bought the VR this week. I haven't shot it much yet, but I think the VR and silent focus is key for me (particularly for my usage.) It is a big lens, particularly with the hood. I also have a 105mm Dine lens, which is quite nice. So honestly if you're using it for stationary objects, and can employ a tripod, than any of those would be great. Chimping it with the 55mm manual lens is also no big deal in those situations. And btw I will be selling the 105mm D and the 105mm Dine in the next week. I'm not advertising that here, just pointing out that my current inventory is ridiculous and a few of them just fell in my lap. Everything clear now?</p>

<p>Glen, I do have the Nikon 105 and the Sigma 150. For my macro shots, I use the Sigma. The Nikon hunts too much and I do like the focal distance of the Sigma. When I am going to shoot macro, this is my lens. I bought the Nikon mainly for portraiture. Here is a sample pict taken with the Sigma. </p><div></div>

<p>Glen, I do apologize. I picked the wrong picture. Here is the right one.</p><div></div>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2086552">Clive Woolls</a> said: "You might want to take a look at the Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro Lens on the used market. Easily as good as the AF-d and superb for non-macro work too "<br>

I agree, and I have owned both lenses. The Tamron is excellent value. The Nikon VR lens would be nice if you want to do hand held shots such as portraits. VR is not so effective for close ups.</p>

<p>I'm going through the same dilemma now, and I've decided on the Sigma. I like the fact that it has OS, not for macro, but for portraits. If I'm taking a closeup. I'll probably always be using a tripod. I have focal length zoom lens in the 105 mm range so I didn't want to have duplicates.I also think that Sigma are putting out some impressive lens.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of product photography & factory floor shots at work using the Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR (on a D700, VR turned off). While I haven't tested it against others, I am blown away by its color and crispness. So much so that I am tempted to pick up the 200mm Micro.</p>

<p>Regarding the Sigma, my personal feeling on 3rd party lenses is to avoid them (please, no flames. this is just my personal preference). My take is that, generally, they have to make concessions in order to work as best as possible across a broad spectrum of cameras. Nikkor lenses, on the other hand, are designed specifically for the nuances of the Nikons. I have tested Sigmas vs Nikkors in the past and have found the Sigmas not as crisp.</p>

<p>I hope that this helps.<br>

Rudy</p>

I'd choose the 105 VR, because I did already. I think it was a great choice, and easily the sharpest lens I've used, not to

mention owned. That said, if you want to do serious macro work the focus breathing may be a bit much for you. I'm okay

with it, but I also got it for mainly handheld work and tight head shots. The VR is great for anything more than about two

feet away, but for 1-1 macro work it is not useful.

<p>go for the sigma 150mm and the 1.4 teleconverter.</p>

<p>the metz ms 15 is a nice piece of kit. just bought one myself, surprised at how easy it is to set up.</p>

<p>the metz 15ms 1 is a great flash unit, been using mine for a few months now. nicely self contained with internal battery housing unlike its competitors. the only thing i wish they would change is the fact that it takes AAA cells rather than AAs. apart from that its great!</p>