Best Macro photography lens for D5100?

<p>Hey!, Just got my D5100 about two months ago with 18-55mm and 55-300mm lenses and am loving it. I have taken many great pictures with it. Mostly landscapes, architecture, people, and a few sport. But I noticed that I can not get in to much detail of the photos I take.<br /><br />For example, I want to be able to take a picture of a leaf and see all the veins of the leaf and water drops dripping down from it. I want to be able to take a picture of my thumb and see my finger print lines. I want to be able to take a picture of an ant on the ground and see it in great detail, I want to see it's antennas, legs, eyes, etc...<br /><br />What type of lens would I need to get to be able to take such photos? Or could I use my current lenses in a different way?<br /><br />Thanks!</p>

<p>You might look at a AF-S Nikkor lens:</p>

<p>the AF-S 40mm f2.8G DX Micro-Nikkor,</p>

<p>or</p>

<p>the AF-S 85mm f3.5G VR DX Micro-Nikkor.</p>

<p>Either one will work well on your D5100 camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Best" is subjective. There's a common saying in photography that there's never been a bad macro lens. As with any lens, you just need to buy based on focal length, price, and features. They will all give the same amount of magnification; the longer focal lengths will just allow you to be further away from your subject (or MAKE you be further away from your subject, depending on how you look at it). The 40mm is Nikon's cheapest option. The 85mm may be something to consider moving up the ladder, along with the Nikon 60mm and 105mm. In addition, you can throw in the various third party lenses, which optically are just as good as the Nikon lenses (Tamron 90mm and 180mm, Tokina 100mm, Sigma 150mm, 50mm and 70mm). All are awesome.</p>

<p>Also, are you sure that you really need a macro lens? Take your 18-55mm, put it on your camera, zoom to 55mm, and focus as close as it can go. It can do pretty well at macro. Example:<br>

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=174724<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon18-55/discuss/72157623220723551/</p>

<p>Besides the lens that can focus at the distance (and thus magnification ratio) you want, you might also need a suitable tripod or stand, and a lighting setup (tent, multiple lights or ring light). Modern AFS lenses will do, but your D5100 is also able to mount old and affordable AI and AIS Micro-Nikkors. Everything (focus and exposure) will be manual, but for macro that is usually no problem. I'm quite happy with my 105mm f:4 Micro-Nikkor; it goes to 1:2 by itself (i.e. an object 48mm across will fill the 24mm wide DX frame), and to 1:1 with a PN-11 extender. If you are ok with guessing exposure by trial and error, using the histogram, and manual focus, this might be a cheaper alternative.</p>

<p>the 18-55 can get in rather close, you can get closer using extension tubes. also a filter like the raynox dcr150 or dcr 250 are very good, so is the canon 500d filter.<br>

for the best macro lens, at a price. the new sigma 105 os is rated above nikon/tamron/tokina.</p>

 

<p>MMM Quite different uses for a "Macro"lens you mention.<br>

My most usefull macro lens till now has been a AF-D 50mm , but for you that would be then a 60mm AF-S lens. This is ok for the "leaf" and "Thumb"pictures you want, and serves as a good portrait and general use lens. <br>

Good alternative for this would be the 105mm nikkor, or if "manual foccussing" is no problem for you ( it is hard on a xamera like the D5100...) , then a 55mm AI or AIS lens ( f3.5 or f2.8) is a veryy nice alternative and can be bought used on fleebay for a good price..)<br>

For the "Ant Picture" a "standard Macro lens"might not be sufficient , fot this you may need more sophisticated equipment like Bellows or Macro lens with extention tubes etc.<br>

This also calls for extra lighting in general ( macro flash / led panel etc.) since your lens will be reasonably close to the subject hence not allowing for much natural light , while your subject is moving most of the time , and you need a "high F-stop"to allow for some dept of field...</p>

 

<p>For DX format the Sigma 70mm macro is perfect, very, very sharp, convenient focal length giving you reasonable working distance.</p>

<p>I've heard negative reviews of the 85mm micro-Nikkor (I don't have personal experience of it), so I might avoid it in favour of the 90mm Tamron or the Sigma alternatives around 100mm (check for the versions with integrated focus motors). The 85mm isn't not bad, but not better than the third party options. Bear in mind that VR is of limited benefit at short range. I've heard no complaints about the optics of the 105mm VR Nikkor, but it also is no better than the third-party options and costs significantly more. A longer macro lens gives more working distance, which means you're less in your own light - but also costs more. I would second the idea of budgeting for a tripod if you don't have one, although some of the rest of the accessories I'd consider optional. Good luck.</p>

<p>Mirnes, if you want to get serious about macro, I would suggest either Tokina 100 mm f/2.8, Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 or Sigma 150 mm f/2.8. I do have the last two and I do prefer my Sigma due to longest reach ( for insects this is extremely important ) and it is razor sharp. The Nikon 105 is very sharp as well but it does breath a lot. However, if you shoot full in manual and focus manually, this lens is superb but it is more expensive than the Sigma. One thing I would never do is to buy the Nikon 40. There is not sense at all to use this lens for macro unless .. you only shoot flowers. In that case the 35 mm f/1.8 makes more sense and can get as close as the 40 mm but better optics. <br>

Here is one picture that I took yesterday with my Sigma. One thing I don't know is if this lens will work with your camera. I hope it does.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is another shot. Look how sharp is it !</p><div></div>

<p>The Nikkor 40 mm has a very short working distance, so it may cast a shadow over your subject when you get real close.</p>

<p>I have tried the 18-55 VR and it has a surprisingly high magnification ratio. It is much better than the 18-105 for instance. Why not add a close up lens and give your 18-55 another go?</p>

<p>Here's a image taken with the AF-S 40mm DX Micro-Nikkor lens</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16346492</p>

<p>if you wish to check how 'sharp' it can be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is not sense at all to use this lens (40mm Micro-Nikkor) for macro unless .. you only shoot flowers. In that case the 35 mm f/1.8 makes more sense and can get as close as the 40 mm but better optics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly. The 40mm Micro-Nikkor goes all the way to 1:1. The 35mm's maximum reproduction ration is 1:6.1 - the 18-55mm kit lens actually focuses closer.</p>

<p>"Better optics" covers a lot of territory, but the 40mm is distortion-free and has a reputation as one of Nikon's sharpest lenses.</p>

<p>True that the 40mm has a very short working distance at 1:1, but you don't have to be that close for every shot.</p>

<p>Since it came up, I'll second that the Sigma 150mm lenses are lovely bits of kit. I have the newer OS version (bought because my old 80-200 wasn't really cutting it on my D800), but they're both very good. Both will work fine on a D5100 - they have internal focus motors. However, they're also both expensive - especially the OS version. If you're prepared to pay that much (and do look at the non-OS version as a budget option if you can find it), I'm sure you'll be happy with it - but there are cheaper macro lenses if you're just getting into the subject.</p>

<p>Yeah those pictures <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5562214">Maurice</a> posted are beautiful and what I am looking for but the Sigma 150mm f2.8 seems to be priced over $800.00. Which is a bit too much for me to drop on a lens right now. The Tokina 100mm f2.8 is in the $300.00 range and more do-able but it also says it's AF while everyone here seems to be recommending I get AF-S.<br /><br />I don't mind sacrificing some focal length for quality. I won't be photographing from too far.<br /><br />Also what exactly is it that makes a lens a macro photography lens? And does anyone here have any good/bad reviews on extension tubes? This is my first time hearing about them.</p>

<p>Hi Mirnes. Yes, the problem with the Tokina is that it's screw focus, which means that - while it'll work on your 5100 - it won't autofocus. Which isn't a problem at macro distances (where you probably want manual focus anyway), but is a bit for general use. There are 90mm Tamron and 105mm Sigma macro lenses that don't have this problem, and should be priced similarly to the Tokina (and less than the 105mm Nikkor). And you're sadly right about the 150mm Sigma pricing - but you did ask about the "best" macro (although that's not <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/imatest-macro-results-with-apologies-to-the-nikon-105-vr-micro">strictly true</a>). In addition to the 150mm Sigma, I own the 90mm Tamron, and it's a very nice lens, though not quite as apochromatic as the 150mm Sigma.</p>

 

<blockquote>I don't mind sacrificing some focal length for quality. I won't be photographing from too far.</blockquote>

 

<p>Bear in mind what that means: The greatest magnification you'll get is at your closest focus distance (with a prime lens). With the Nikkor 40mm "micro" lens, you're trying to focus 163mm from the back of the camera, or about 8cm from the nodal point of the lens. That is, the distance between the front of the lens and your subject is likely to be about the length of your finger. Doing this without affecting the light on your subject might be considered challenging. The 100mm Tokina can get you the same magnification but from 300mm away.</p>

 

<blockquote>Also what exactly is it that makes a lens a macro photography lens?</blockquote>

 

<p>Technically, a "macrophotography" involves the image of the thing you're photographing being the same size or bigger than the subject of the photograph - that is, if you took a slide film shot of an ant, it would be a macro photograph if the image of the ant was bigger than the ant was. On a DX camera like the D5100, the sensor is roughly 24mm x 16mm, so a 1:1 image would fill the frame with an object this size - a smallish postage stamp (but bear in mind that you can always crop the middle out of an image digitally and enlarge the result - you'll just lose quality; a lot of prints are "macro" by the time they've been printed).<br />

<br />

A "macro" lens usually means a lens capable of producing 1:1 magnification at the sensor. Nikon are picky about their naming, and reserve "macro" for anything capable of doing <i>better</i> than 1:1 (i.e. the image is bigger than the subject); these are obscure and specialist lenses. Nikon use "micro" for a lens that simply focuses very close. Modern Nikon "micro" lenses get to 1:1; older ones could sometimes only get to 1:2, but were designed to be used with an extension tube to reach 1:1. Most other manufacturers use "macro" to mean "1:1", and that's the common definition of a macro lens.<br />

<br />

Note that some zoom lenses are marked as "macro" simply because they focus closer than you'd expect a zoom lens to manage - but they're usually still a long way from getting as close as a "true" macro lens. This is generally considered to be marketing rubbish, with the exception of one really rare Nikon design that really was designed to be a zoom "micro" lens.<br />

<br />

Most macro lenses are designed to be used at short distances, and are therefore much better corrected for them than conventional lenses. They also tend to have a very flat field, so you can shoot a flat object and get it all in focus.<br />

<br />

As for extension tubes, they're not rocket science. There are some expensive ones which can activate an aperture on the lens, and cheaper ones that don't - otherwise, they're metal tubes, and I can't imagine there's much to go wrong. It helps to have a lens that's got an aperture ring (not "G") so you can adjust the aperture without the lens being directly mounted on the camera. If you want to get exotic, you might like to investigate bellows...<br />

<br />

I hope that helps, and I haven't made any serious gaffs in that explanation!</p>

<p>Here's a micro-Nikkor shot from the backyard...our autumn weather is still *buggy* to say the least!</p>

<p>The in-camera trim tool was applied one-time. </p>

<p>Nothing else was done to the image except to downsize it for posting on Photo Net.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Jim, it does not matter if that lens gets to 1:1. The point is that it is too short for insects. You don't want to have a lens that short and that is why in my opinion is not the right option for macro shots. If the OP wants to go for the 40mm, then in my opinion is better to get in this case, the 35 mm f/1.8 which it is much faster lens and still can be used for close-up pics. It does not make any sense to buy this lens if you will not be able to shoot insects due to the short focal length. <br>

For dedicated macro shots, you need at least a 100 mm, so insects do not fly away. Although, 150 and 180 mm are in my opinion, the best choices, but again, if you only want to shoot flowers, by all means get the 40mm but remember, macro is not just flowers and any lens can be used for close-up photography. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the OP wants to go for the 40mm, then in my opinion is better to get in this case, the 35 mm f/1.8 which it is much faster lens and still can be used for close-up pics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The faster speed is probably irrelevant since the depth of field at f2.0 and f1.8 is paper thin. It would only be usable for flat subjects, and the 35mm is optically worst at these apertures. For closeups you generally want a smallish aperture (no more than f8) at which both lenses are sharp. The 40mm can focus much closer - so it takes the advantage IMO. I agree that it would not be the best choice for (live) insects.</p>

<p>+1 for the Sigma 150. I have the one that does not have image stabilization, considerably less expensive than the new one. Love it. VERY sharp!</p>

<p>Why is the 18-55VR not working for you? Does it not focus close enough, or are you not getting the details? If the former, by all means buy a macro lens. Suitable Nikon lenses would include the 60G and 85VR. If you are already as close as you want to be but your images are not what you wish for, try posting an example and seeking advice. You may very well need higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures than you are used to, which may be achieved using one or more of higher ISO settings, a tripod, or appropriate flash.</p>

<blockquote>+1 for the Sigma 150</blockquote>

 

<p>The "$800" mentioned by the OP as too pricey seems to be the going KEH rate for the non-OS version. While I love the 150 Sigma(s), let's aim lower? Just trying to keep us helpful.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

here is the sample taken with D5100 and 18-55 VR lens. If you concentrate when taking image it works fine.<br>

I recommend 60mm 2.8 Micro Nikkor lens. It is one of the best lenses, but for some objects you need to get really close for best macro effect. It has fantastic bokeh (background blur). You can buy used for $300 - $400 in a good condition (D version).</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon 28-105. Macro from 50-105. Fantastic lens, can be had for around $200. </p>

<p>For many of my film years was very happy using my Tamron 90mm macro (I have both versions and the Adaptall 2 adapters) or Vivitar 90mm macro - great pictures with both, but you need to use an adapter to go beyond 1:2 so it is a bit clunky. Got one of the AF Tamron 90mm macro lenses that does 1:1 to use on my D80 and now D7000 and have been equally pleased. Has the "screwdriver" type of AF, so will not work on some Nikon DSLR's. But that is not that much of a problem since I usually use manual focus anyway. Maybe if my acute vision starts to go (72 now and still fine) I will rethink AF, but for now I am quite happy.<br>

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8046/8092078659_576b5a137f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="910" /></p>