Recommend a Macro Lens for Use on a D90?

<p>Folks,<br>

I recently upgraded from a compact/bridge to my first DSLR, a Nikon D90. While using the compact I had a lot of fun and practice shooting closeups using a set of closeup filters for my Panasonic FZ18. I bought the D90 body and bought the 50mm F/1.8D lens seperate and Im glad I made that choice of lens. I was wondering though, whats a reasonable (price and quality) macro lens I can get for the D90. If anyone has used or is using one that they're happy with can you please advise? My limited understanding is that a 100mm lens is a good choice for macros. Any opinions?<br>

Appreciated.<br>

Anthony.</p>

<p>Do you want a prime macro lens (tends to be more expensive but in some areas better quality) or a macro zoom (often denigrated as "not real macro" but very useful when you want to add close focus to an otherwise useful lens)? Since you've already used closeup filters and aren't just buying some in 52mm thread I'll assume that's not what you're looking for. What's a reasonable price for you?</p>

<p>It will help a lot to know what you intend to be shooting. For example: many people will use a macro lens while shooting food (say, a subject the size of a coffee cup, or a bowl of soup), while others are more interested in halfl-inch spiders that run away if you get too close. Knowing the sort of subject matter you're interested in will dictate the focal length of the lens, since that drives working distance.<br /><br />100mm <em>is</em> a good macro focal length. But so is 60mm, and 200mm. Depends what you're shooting!</p>

<p>I still sometimes thread up the old 52mm filters on to the 50mm 1.8D but Im getting less and less impressed with the image quality. It seems like Im limiting the potential of the camera itself by using the relatively poor quality glass of the filters. Since I've never actually owned or used a designated macro lens before I cant say that I have a preference between prime or zoom. But if you think I can get better image quality with a prime I'd give it a try. Reasonable price I'd say around $300-$500. I know that designated macros are potentially more costly. Is it recommended to consider buying used?</p>

<p>A set of extension tubes might be an option to explore. They will let your 50mm focus very, very close indeed. I use an old set of "dumb" tubes that work only with manual focus/aperture lenses. But for under $100 USD, these <a href="http://www.adorama.com/MCAETNKAF.html">http://www.adorama.com/MCAETNKAF.html</a> will let you explore the world of macro with your 50mm lens while maintaining auto focus and auto aperture control (bear in mind that macro work almost always uses manual focus). <br /> <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=962928">All the images in my Macro gallery</a> were taken with a 50mm lens and extension tubes on a D90. For reference, the white bell-shaped blossoms are about a centimeter long.<br /> I also found <a href="http://www.edbergphoto.com/pages/Tip-macro-tools.html">this link</a> to be very helpful in explaining the pros and cons of the various options for macro photography.<br /> Good luck!<br /> PR</p>

<p>Matt,<br>

Subjects of interest include Insects, leaves, flowers, feathers, coins, seashells. These items apparently have some size differences amongst them. With the exception of insects the subjects will mostly be stationary. I have researched reversing rings and extension tubes heavily (thanks for the link Peter) but was discouraged in some of the reviews where people said the fit (depending on brand) was either tight or loose (one person said his lens fell right off the camera when mounted with the tubes) and from reviews that said metering and AF didnt work. Im fine without the AF though, I already mostly shoot using just MF. Im willing to invest in the designated macro lens with the hope of using it for years to come.</p>

<p>Tiz' the season for those flowers and blooms.<br>

Item # 350334869994</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will recommend either 60F2.8 AF-D or AFS micro lens. They work really well on the D90 and they are sharper their 105mm micro counterparts.<br>

I have a relatively fresh sample of the 60F2.8 AF-D and it seems to be a better at near infinity distance in comparison to an older sample I had.<br>

You can also try new 85F3.5VR DX lens for more working distance and VR.</p>

 

<p>I've got the 105VRII and it's not only a spectacular insect and flower lens on a DX body (1.5X means 1.5:1 subject magnification), it's also great for people portraiture with beautiful bokeh (provided they perfect skin-- it's too sharp for photographing women of a certain age).<br>

I do find it a bit too long for shooting tutorials or for table top with a DX body, however.</p>

<p>+1 on what Adam says above. I also recently purchased the 60mm f2.8 and it's a great lens. I do a lot of flower photography and have achieved wonderful results. It's also reasonable priced and on a DX body gives you the equivalent of a 90mm lens which is good for portraits.</p>

<p>Most of the macro work in my portfolio was done with extension tubes. The black and white flowers were shot with a 35-105mm AIS manual focus Nikkor with a macro filter screwed on the end. Probably not the best set-up, but at tight apertures, the differences seem to vanish. </p>

<p>Just checked out some sample shots for the 60 and 105mm. Seems like both are excellent choices. Of course on the issue of budget my natural choice may just be the 60mm.<br>

Im relatively new to the forum, maybe I need to read the rules but is there a reason why everyone refers to the obvious "auctioneer" by various non-discolosing names?? Reminds me of The Village, 'the ones of whom we do not speak".</p>

<p>How about the 55 f2.8 micro manual focus, surely one of Nikon's best ever lenses. And who needs AF for macro?<br />Saying that, I have the 105 2.8 AF micro and it's superb.<br />Steve</p>

<p>I'd have bought the 105VR over the AF 105 just for the ED lens elements even if it didn't have AF-S and a automatically de-clutching manual over-ride focus ring. As it turns out, this lens happens to do double duty with larger than macro-sized subject matter, where the faster responding AF-S is extremely useful.</p>

Steve, know where I can see some sample shots with this lens?

<p>Im noting the crisp clean performance of the 105mm. But its out of my price range for now.</p>

<p>You'll have to do a search Anthony, I don't know anywhere off the top of my head. But I used to have one and it was so gorgeous and is known as one of Nikon's best. Handles beautifully and goes to 1:1 as well.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Just to muddy the waters a bit, the Tamron 90 f2.8 has gotten some good reviews and it is in your price range. I prefer a longer working distance provided by a longer focal length lens for two reasons. I shoot a lot of insects and don't want to get too close to some of them and it also makes it a little easier to light my subject.</p>

<p>55mm is a great little lens. <br>

However rather than the MF 55mm, you might want to consider the 60mm AF. I actually use the 105mm f2.8 with PN-11 so I am OK with MF, but for the price, I would just go with the 60mm.</p>

 

<p>The only thing that I don't like about my 55mm f3.5 micro is the close working distances. The working distance at 1:2 is only about 3 inches from the front of the lens. Add to that the fact that you are nearly at the close focus point of the lens, and you get some very shallow depth of field, which can be good or bad, depending on what you're trying to accomplish. If I could have afforded it, I would definitely have rather had a 105mm or 200mm, but they were out of my price range. Other than the working distance, I've quite enjoyed my 55mm. </p>

<p>Anthony, given your budget and my limited time to read through everyone's posts today, here's my suggestions:</p>

<p>I only suggest Nikon lenses for personal and QC reasons</p>

<p><strong>AF 60mm f/2.8 micro $469.95</strong><br>

<em>Pros:</em> Price, true macro, easy to hand hold due to the focal length<br>

<em>Cons:</em> 60mm means you have to get closer to get true macro. Shadows become an issue on sunny days and you may want to invest in a flash. Slow focusing compared to AF-S lenses</p>

<p><strong>AF-S Micro-Nikor 60mm f/2.8 ED $539.95</strong><br>

<em>Pros:</em> Price, true macro, easy to hand hold due to the focal length, fast AF<br>

<em>Cons:</em> 60mm means you have to get closer to get true macro. Shadows become an issue on sunny days and you may want to invest in a flash.</p>

<p><strong>AF-S DX Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED $499.95</strong><br>

<em>Pros:</em> Price, true macro, great focal length on DX for hand holding and tripod work. Fast AF<br>

<em>Cons:</em> DX lens means that you can only use it on a DX format camera. Aperture doesn't give the shallow DoF of other macro lenses, but it is still very good.</p>

<p>Anything longer is going to bust your budget. The 105mm is $890 and really needs a tripod due to the lens "breathing" or re-focusing as you breathe. The 200mm f/4 is probably the BEST macro lens out there for anything not moving, but then you're into the $1650 price range.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

RS</p>

<p>You mentioned filters. You did not specify what they were or how you were using them, or the image defects observced. Facts, facts are needed for responses to make sense.</p>

<p>Many old 52mm filters are not suitable for use with digital cameras. I know. I have them all, and the lenses to put them on. E.g., linear polarizing filters will tend to interfere with focusing and metering systems on a digital camera. [Circular polarizing filters have a second coating behind the polarizing layer which disrupts the polarized light so that it does not interfere with your camera's systems.] Uncoated filters, such as skylights, warming, and UV filters will cause reflections between the filter and the front element, and cause flare and loss of contrast. Warming is unnecessary since that is now taken care of in software, in camera and on your computer.</p>

<p>One other thing. When it comes to macros for your Nikon, nobody's third party macro lens should be overlooked. They are all excellent, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron ~100mm macros will satisfy you. And the cost is far less than the excellent Nikkor. The Nikkor's long suit will be that it is more rugged and will sell for more used. If you search these fora, or any other lens forum, the third party macros all are reported to do an excellent job.</p>

<p>Why not used? KEH, Adorama and B&H are all respected sellers of used lenses. Fixed focal length lenses have less to go wrong with them than zooms and lenses with gadgets like VR. eBay is a huge roll of the dice.</p>

<p>If cost is a major concern, you might want to also consider a manual focus lens, e.g.the 105mm F/4 Ai-S Micro-Nikkor. I picked up one on eBay along with a PB-4 Bellows Unit to copy slides with my Nikon D80.</p>

<p>Your cheapest option is to reverse mount the 50mm 1.8. You can do this wish a $15 item from B&H (part #GBRRN52). Once you need to get closer the Nikon BR-3 adaptor will allow you to use your filters on the reverse mounted lens ($40 new).I was using the reverse mounting option as an inexpensive solution to experiment with macro photography.<br>

<br /> Once I got into it more and was committed to spending the money, I got the 60mm 2.8 and LOVE it. It's a great portrait lens and phenomenal for macro. Setting your camera into commander mode and using an external remote flash is a great way of preventing the need for a tripod. It's a tack sharp lens and on a DX body it is a 90mm equiv.<br>

<br /> Cheers,<br /> Adam<br /> <br /></p>