Macro Lenses...

[joshua jones]

Looking into buying a macro lense for misc. shots of water drops,

insects, flowers, make-up art, etc. Can anybody recommend any lenses

within reasonable amount (approx. $250)? Thanks for any advice!

[kaiyen]

If you're going to do macros of insects, you're going to need at _least_ a 100mm-ish focal length. In that range, you'll get about 5-6" of working distance from front of lens to subject. That's awfully tight as is for anything moving like an insect. With a 50-60mm-ish lens you're at like 2-3" of working distance, maybe less.

 

If you want more than that, you'll need to go out to the 200mm-ish range, but then your price goes way up ($600 at least).

 

I have a Sigma 105mm 2.8, and have only seen good results from the Tamron 90mm 2.8. Both are about $300-350.

 

allan

[mark_chappell]

Second the recommendation of the Sigma 105 (which I had for a while) and the Tamron

(which as a super reputation). One possibility: if you have a 70-200 zoom or something

similar, you could try using extension tubes or closeup lenses. Canon and Nikon make

excellent closeup lenses that yield surprisingly good results from long zoom lenses. By

'surprisingly good' I don't mean to imply that the images will be as good as those from a

real macro lens, but this is a much cheaper approach.

[antonrussell]

Kiron 105mm f2.8

[andrew_hall1]

>if you have a 70-200 zoom or something similar, you could try using extension tubes or closeup lenses.<P>

 

I would suggest <b>85 to 105mm prime lenses</b> for extension tubes or close-up attachment lenses. The performance of zooms will suffer considerably with optical attachments. Focal lengths longer than ~105mm also need a lot of extension (more than one complete set of extension tubes) to focus closely.

[rob_murray]

You can do like I do to save cost and weight. I use a 75-300

Zoom lens with a Canon 2 element closeup diopter ($80) or

a Nikon 5T or 6T close up diopter($50). Both are excellent weigh

just a few ounces and results are great.

[stemked]

I would HIGHLY suggest a second hand Tamron 90mm f2.5/f2.8 (these are two different lenses)adaptol lenses. They usually run in the $130-150 range (you'll have to get a $20 adapter for your camera make) and are excellent optics. This is my wife's current macro lens and she has done well with it winning several nature photo contests with images taken using this lens.

[jeffpolaski]

Ditto Anton's recommendation. The Kiron lenses are little known but very good. I 've got mine.

[petre_petrov1]

I want to suggest a 100mm f3.5 macro lens that is currently being sold under variety of brand names (Phoenix, Vivitar, Promaster, etc.). I had the Vivitar in Pentax mount, used it for a month, then sold it on eBay when I got the Pentax-F 100mm f2.8 Macro. Although it is silly to have two 100mm macros, and although the Pentax IS better, something in me still regrets selling the Vivitar. The shots I got with it were simply phenomenal, especially considering the price. I think I paid $48 for it!!! The lens is available in both AF and MF versions (optically identical) and comes with a 1:1 attachment that screws on the front (without it, you get to 1:2). The AF version is around $130. The MF version should be quite a bit cheaper (I personally never used AF for macro work). For that kind of price, the lens is an absolute steal. You will save $100 or more from you budget and you will be thrilled with the sharpness of your images. If you want, I can send you some of the ones I shot; just drop me an email.

Here is the lens in Olympus mount, currently auctioned on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3344&item=3879033421&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

[andrew_hall1]

A specialized macro lens is a good idea if you find one within your budget. Keep in mind that as you get closer, the effective aperture becomes smaller and the viewfinder darker - another reason not to use a zoom lens.