Jump to content

Best all around "affordable" FX Macro


Sandy Vongries

Recommended Posts

<p>Though I have had an old 55/ 3.5 Macro for years, it was used almost entirely for slide copying. A while back I picked up a Ricoh GXR to use with Leica and old Nikon lenses. Since I had no digital macro capability, I also bought a macro module to go with it. The last month or so, I have been really enjoying using it. Clearly, I already have that, and it works pretty well, though I still have a lot to learn about taking Macro shots. Of course, the first thing that comes to mind is wouldn't it be fun to have a macro lens for my "Real" camera system, DF and D 750. I nearly always buy refurb or used. Don't believe I am willing (yet) to pay what they are asking for a 200. What would some of you macro enthusiasts suggest? Thanks!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Although I have the newer 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro, I still own the 105mm/f2.8 AF macro (pre-D) I bought back in 1990. Obviously that lens is over a quarter century old, but it is still very good.</p>

<p>A lot of times I prefer to have a longer working distance and therefore I use the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro, which has the advantage of a built-in tripod collar, but we are talking about a four-digit price tag.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I got the old non-AI Nikkor 105mm "micro" lens for manual use on Canon EOS cameras, and since AF isn't as handy as you might think for macro work, it does just fine. It's a classic lens.<br>

However, my favorite lens for macro-style work is my Tamron 90mm in Canon EOS mount. They also make it in a Nikon F mount and it is a fine macro lens, especially on an APS-C body (Photozone review of the most recent version on FX sensor at http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/902-tamron90f28vcfx ) although it is a lot longer than your 55mm lens.<br>

If I did more macro work with a FX body, I'd be with Shun on getting a longer lens, in that case the Tamron 180mm.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also have the Nikon micro 105 f2.8.AF like Shun, but, after a few years, the AF failed to AF. But, using it manually for macro works better than the AF which spent more time hunting than finding when it worked. But the real problem with the lens, I think, is the short throw to focus.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are looking to add a lens purely for macro photography to your line up then the <strong>Kiron 105/2.8</strong> Ai manual focus lens is excellent, inexpensive, has an adjustable length lens hood and focuses to 1:1 like the Nikkor 105mm AF-D model which I used to have and is every bit as good as the Kiron and has AF for applications other than macro.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another vote for the old manual focus 105/2.8. I never understood AF in macro work...you're usually on a tripod, doing finicky positioning and DOF adjustments, seems like AF would just get in the way. I also have a 55mm I use with my PB-4 for slide and neg copying. I'm very happy with both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>JDM -- Thanks, I do love the old lenses. Manual focus for an awful lot more years than auto, you get spoiled, tho. Falling back on manual can solve a lot of problems! Actually, forgot I have a Tokina 28-70 AIS Macro I was given -- before I spend anything, have to give that a try -- have always done best with Nikon though. S</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sandy - I've used several macros over the years and can second the opinions of 3 longer ones - the Nikon 105/2.8 AFD, the Tamron 90/2.5 (manual focus, but with the adaptall adapters you can use it on almost any SLR/DSLR made, and the Kiron 105/2.8 (I used the Canon FD version, not the Nikon mount)). My rundown is that much of my macro work has been handheld in the field...and as much as I like manual focus lenses, the Nikon AF does a damn fine job and sometimes that quick focus makes the difference between getting a shot or not. The Kiron is my favorite for the long focusing throw and built in 1:1 magnification...but it is a pretty long beast at times. The Tamron does a fine job on any camera I've used it on and its versatility is an attractive feature, as I have a bunch of old cameras as well as modern DSLRs. Any of them should do a great job for you.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also use the Kiron 105/2.8 and for sharpness up close, I think it is the best macro lens at this focal length. But to be honest, I do not think you can go wrong with any of the macro lenses specifically for close up or macro work; i.e., as long as you don't expect them to be on the same par for long distance landscape work.</p>

<p>IMHO, when shooting macros, the lens is of secondary importance; because it will be stopped down to maximize DOF at or close to minimum focus distance, your primary consideration should be lighting.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My old Ser 1 70-210/3.5 Vivitar had a real nice macro....and if you can find one, it would normally cost $50 or less. For the most part I've been using Tamron 90/2.8 (older version) and it's a wonderful glass. Hmmm, unless I'd do focus-stitching, normally I'd be handheld and in manual. Any other way the critters would be 1/2 way to Alaska, by the time I disturb it....shuffling around.</p>

<p>If you feel that you need more space between you and the critters, I think Sigma 150mm would give you that space...or the 180.</p>

<p>Les</p><div>00dz1P-563504284.jpg.bdc0a40b9d2ad340b4b00898a630b1af.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Best all around "affordable" FX Macro</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recommend the Tamron SP AF 180mm lens. It's comparable to the Nikon 200mm micro in sharpness and in effect, yet lighter and at a fraction of the price. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on what you want to photo, of course. Probably the best "general purpose" macro for someone who just wants a macro is the Tamron 90mm SP. Great lens, plentiful used. I have a Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR (current model,) but have found I don't use it since buying a Canon 500D diopter. I use that on either my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR or 80-400mm AFS. The results are very close to the 105mm micro, and the 500D takes up so little space. So, that's what I use now.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I much like my Tokina 100mm - sweet performer, decent price. Tamron 90mm probably makes an equally fine choice.<br>

Depending on what you like to do, I wouldn't discount the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G either - no personal experience with it (yet?) but everything I see with it does convince me it's a real gem in Nikon's current lens line-up. If you're more into living things, something longer than 100mm might be nicer, so the lenses recommended in the previous posts would be the prime suspects there.<br>

Maybe a bit of the beaten path - the Leica Elmarit-R 60mm can often be found at really decent prices, and can take a Leitax conversion to Nikon F. It only goes down to 1:2, but other than that, it's a pretty awfully solid performer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Tamron 90mm push-pull AF (pre-stabilised)

version. It's pretty good, light and cheap, even if the AF is

little clunky. Unlike the more expensive replacement

(and possibly Tokina?) it IS a bit prone to LoCA, though

(unless you stop down), and the deeply embedded front

element means you don't have the working distance

you'd think, but it's probably still better for not blocking

the light than a 50-60mm macro. It'll also double as a

portrait lens if f/2.8 will do you.

 

I supplemented it with the more expensive 150mm

Sigma OS, which fixed the LoCA and working distance (and replaced my 135 f/2 DC, whose LoCA annoyed me),

but makes for a much bigger system (somewhat less so if you find the non-OS) - if the size and cost are okay, length is good for a lot of macro purposes, so I use the 150 more than the 90. Still, the Tamron will

probably come with me on a holiday soon, for size

reasons. Even if using manual focus at macro distances

(and I've seen, in particular, my F5 struggle with the

Tamron at short range), I find AF useful for general use.

 

HTH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, all. I had forgotten the Tokina Macro Zoom -- on the GXR that will be 105 equivalent at the long end so I can get an idea of the difference between that and the 33mm (50 equivalent) GXR macro module in terms of working distance. Fundamentally, I will shoot our wildflowers, insects, and the occasional oddity for No Words. Understanding that it is counterproductive, I am no fan of tripods, and mostly work available light so will never attain the levels of perfection some of you achieve. Knees no longer quite as willing or flexible, so a bit longer reach would be nice, the trade off, another enormous lens, with which I am already well supplied! I appreciate all of the suggestions and will make a list of lens recommendations in order to see what I can actually handle at my local camera shop and what might be available on the internet. Many thanks to all for sharing your expertise!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you refuse to use a tripod, the image stabilization (VR, OS) will really make a huge difference. Huge. Macro magnifies all the little jiggles to the point of making it very difficult to get a sharp photo. Another thought is using flash, but that would add several notches of difficulty, set up time, and stuff to carry. I had a non-OS Sigma 100mm macro but quickly replaced it with the Nikon 105mm VR. Huge improvement. I now just use a Canon 500D on my 80-400mm AFS, which makes for one less lens to carry.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto the old 105mm macro. I have the 105 mm D AF version. I Traded in my 105 manual focus AIs version for it. THe

manual focus version is much easier to focus manually than the AF version. For that reason, I would get the manual focus

version. If you can find it on eBay or used, also get the Nikon PN-11 extension tube. A tripod collar mount is built into it

and allows for certain Nikon manual focus lenses to get to 1:1.

 

For a brand new AF macro, check out the sigma 150mm. If you do not need to get real close to the subjects, an old Nikon

300mm f4 afD with an extension tube works just great too especially for subjects like dragonflies.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If you do not needto get real close to the subjects, an old Nikon 300mm f4 afD with an extension tube works just great too especially for subjects like dragonflies.<br>

Joe</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Be careful. The Nikon 300mm f4 AFS will vignette on FX with extension tubes. Been there, done that. You need to check whether that is true of the AFD also.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...