what is the best micro lens on the cheap( besides a 50-60mm)

by cheap i mean 400-475 us dollars. I can buy used

Tamron 90mm 2.8 AF. Almost as good as it gets. B&H $439

You could buy a manual focus 200mm AIS for under $200.00 and add a

PN-11 extention tube (that has a tripod collar). I just bought a

200mm micro manual focus AIS for around $450.00. Also look at the

older nikon 105 f4 micro which will be much cheaper than the 105 2.8

AFD but does not give one a 1:1 rati

I was leaning towards the tamron since it has an even better rating than the nikon 105. one question. Is 90 that much of a difference between 105?

The focal length doesn�t mean anything at all for many current macros as they have floating elements or IF construction and loose focal length as the focus close. Concern your self with free working distance and angle of view at macro distances. I understand that the AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor is but 60mm at 1:1. I know for sure that the lens did not interest me at all when I looked at it in person. The free working distance was simply too short.

 

You didn�t mention your camera. If you have a camera that can use AI and AIS lenses you have a lot more choices. You could use a 180/2.8ED or 200/4.0 (late compact, not IF) as well as the 200/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor. You also didn�t mention what you want to use the lens for. This makes a difference also.

 

I�d recommend the AF 60/2.8D and the AF 200/4.0D ED-IF (based on reputation) if the price were not so high. I just don�t care for the AF 105/2.8D.

 

Hope this helps,

Depends what other lenses you own. If you don't own extension

tubes, I'd get them first. I bought the Tamron 90 first, but mostly

because I needed a good portrait lens.

If you can make do with manual focus lenses, you can do quite well for the $200 vicinity. The Tamron 90mm f2.8 or the earlier f2.5, as well as similar manual focus lenses from Tokina, Sigma, Kiron, and Vivitar Series One are all quite superb. The issue of internal focus vs. external is a legitimate one, and I for one do NOT believe that internal focusing is better for these lenses. I have owned the Vivitar Series One 90mm f2.5 and the Tamron 90mm f2.5 and both are superb. The only reason I switched from the Vivitar to the Tamron is that I use a range of camera brands, and the Tamron fits them all with the correct Adaptall-2 mount. Both of these lenses are in the same general quality class as the 55mm and 60mm Micro-Nikkors that I also have, but the longer focal length makes them easier to use on most subject matter, IMHO.

 

FYI, You can get a non-AI 55mm Micro Nikkor f3.5 for $60-75 on Ebay and AI-convert it yourself, if you really want to know how cheaply you can enter the world of a high quality Macro Lens.

Of the Nikon macros, I recommend the 105 as the starting point. The 60 mm has limited applicability unless you carry specialized tripods for getting close, and the 200 mm is heavy & pricey. That leaves the 105, whichis my favourite nature lens. And the working distance is just fine thank you, never had a problem with that.

 

Optical quality is secondary in this choice, since they're all very good to excellent at macro distances. The 60 mm is poor at infinity and wide stops, while the 105 is very sharp at long distances, making it a good general purpose lens. The 200 mm is out of your price range.

The Free working distance of several Micro Nikkors at 1:1...<br>

<br>

55/2.8 w/ PK-13 ........................... 56mm<br>

60/2.8D AF.................................... 73mm<br>

105/2.8D AF ............................... 136mm<br>

105/2.8 AIS w/ PN-11 ................ 182mm<br>

200/4.0 AI w/ PN-11 & PK 13 ... 348mm<br>

<br>

I do not currently own a 105/4.0 unfortunately but it would most

likely have a little more free working distance than 105/2.8 AIS.

The only Micro Nikkors I have not owned or do not own are the

very early 55mm preset, the AF 105/2.8D which I do not care to

own and the AF 200/4.0D ED-IF which do hope to own. I could

measure the 55/3.5 non-AI (compensating aperture) and 55/3.5 AI

but I'm too lazy. They are probably similar to the 55/2.8 anyway.<br>

<br>

Perhaps the best advice is to by is to buy some extension tubes.

If you have an AF camera you might consider a set of Kenko

Automatic Extension Tubes for Nikon AF. The set included a 12mm,

20mm and 36mm AF tube. If your camera can use AI and AIS lenses

and if you have some medium telephotos consider a Nikon PN-11 and

PK-13. The PN-11 has a tripod collar that is very useful. Before

spending a lot of money on a lens that may not allow you to take

the kind of photos you invasion pick up a copy of John Shaws

<u>Closeups In Nature</u> and extension tubes and get some

experience.<br>

<br>

Here is a site with critical Nikkor lens evaluations, look for "Lenses"

on the left...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new">Nærfoto Bjørn

Rørslett</a><br>

<br>

Hope this helps,

Are you the 15-year old Nate Merz who has no money to buy anything and has sworn off asking provocative questions about what is best?

Yup. And just to clear up some questions you may have: This is not money I have.This is money that I will have after christmas from family and relativs (big family) So what if that is me? What are you gonna do about it.:)

Get the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF lens and forget about other options, unless you have the cash for the Nikkor 105 or 200 mm. You will not be sorry.

Nathan, remove chip from shoulder and remember the past you're trying to live down.

 

Now, to address y'r question, which is not a new one, the best for the money if you must buy new is probably the 100/3.5 Phoenix/Vivitar. It is the best for the money because its the least expensive new ~100 mm macro lens around. It would be helpful to know what gear you already have, since if you have a normal lens and not a "portrait" lens you'd probably be better off getting the longer one.

 

If you want to buy used, the field is wider and what you should get depends a lot on what you can find at a reasonable price. It still isn't clear that you'll find much but beat-up old 55/3.5 MicroNikkors for less than a new 100/3.5 Phoenix/Vivitar, though.

 

If you do your homework and search the archives for responses to questions like this one, or if you pay attention to the sensible responses you've got here, you'll realize that its very hard to make a bad mistake when you buy a macro lens. The worst you can do is pay too much.

 

$400-475 ought to buy you some combination of lenses (more than one) and film and accessories. Unless you can count on getting similar largesse often, you ought to reflect on what you need or lack and how much of it you can get for the money you hope to receive. Don't focus on the one thing. And remember that if you buy used and don't overpay you can always sell the mistake on eBay and get much of your money back.

 

Instead focus on surviving. When I was your age and at least as obnoxious as you are, the smart money favored the neighbors not letting me make it to adulthood. In my case, the smart money lost. In yours, the bet's still running.

ok...

The manual focus Nikkors or Nikon's tubes aren't compatible with very many Nikon bodies today, and will be even less so in the future. Look at the D100. No metering. Bad investment. Get a lens which has the electrical contacts so you won't loose money on a thing that nobody will want.

 

Why is it interesting to compare working distances at 1:1? How often do you take pictures at that magnification anyway? The DOF is so short its next to useless anyway. At least for me, the macro lenses are used frequently between 1:10 and 1:2. The working distance differences between the MF and AF 105's quickly disappear as you reduce the magnification a bit.

I own micro 55mm AIS+PK11 .It is very good,but too short for my

macro shots(1:1 or more)

Now I'm receiving one micro 105mm AF D lens and hope it shall be better for my use

Does anybody know or help where to buy ext.tube PN-11? I have short budget for it

TIA

Gianfranco

By way of elimination: just don't buy a Sigma macro lens. Come to think of it, don't buy a Sigma anything. But least of all, a macro. This would constitute as "making a big mistake". I had near-new one fall apart (litterally! elements dropping off, screws flying about the place...) in my hands. The bolts are secured with TAPE! Optics are only average too. I ended up with the 60mm Nikkor. Love at first roll. I find mine to be extremely sharp on infinity as well as on 1:1. Too sharp for portraits, for example. Blew my mind away. This may be an exceptionally good specimen, though. But,

"Do Not Buy Sigma!"

Cosina/Voigtlander has come out with a mean-looking macro lens in a Nikon AIS mount. It's in the right price range, too.