What Macro Lens for D700?

[jeffrey_aiello_photography]

<p>With the 200-400 f/4 running nearly 6 grand.. I'm thinking about buying a less expensive lens to add to my collection. I do enjoy doing some "macro" type work, mostly flowers and flower details, not real interested in bugs, so i'm thinking about getting a Macro lens.<br>

For the D700, or any Nikon FX camera, does anyone have a preferred macro lens? I'm looking at both the 60mm and the 105mm. The lens "may" occassionally be used on my D300, but 95% of the time would be on the 700.<br>

Thanks!</p>

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

[tobey_bilek]

<p>My 105 Ai or Ais is very good up close to its limit. So is my 50 2.0 Nikor H, my favorite 50. Nikons close up lenses can be added to get closer, two element ones, not cheapies.<br>

If you like older glass, 55 3.5 is very nice. So is my 60 2.8 first generation. All the 105 Micros are good.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The 85/2.8 PC is very versatile and excellent up to its near limit of 1:2. Then there are the excellent Zeiss macro lenses, the versatile AF-S micro Nikkors and the older high quality manual focus AI micro Nikkors which each have their advantage. Plus some other good third party macro lenses, such as the Tamron 90/2.8. So it's a bit hard to make a recommendation. My favorite for a D700 would probably be the 85/2.8 PC, the Zeiss 100/2 and the Zeiss 50/2 to cover enough situations.<br>

Some point that I would like to make is that I did not like the old AF micro Nikkors due to their lousy focusing feel, which is somewhat of importance in macro. The new AF-S micro Nikkors are far better, but they are designed to be more universal than the manual focus micro Nikkors, sometimes at the cost of suitability for macro (this particularly applies to the 105/2.8 AF-S VR). Thus, it's a choice whether versatility or applicability for macro is most important.</p>

[SCL]

<p>The 108/2.8 Nikkor Micro and Tamron 90/2.5 both do an excellent job. If you're into manual operation for around $400 or so you can get a used Lester Dine (Kiron) 105/2.8 which at least matches if not beats the previously mentioned lenses.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>While I have had both the 60 and 105 Micro Nikkors it wasn't until I purchased the tilt/shift 85mmm Micro Nikkor that I could really appreciate its capaility on full frame. It may be the sharpest lens that I have, with high contrast and no fall off. It's definitely my favorite. </p>

[ilmilco]

<p>I would suggest to have some macro rings added to the macro lens, it will help you to use the macro lens with more distance to the subject. The current AF macro rings are not expensive, i enjoy them a lot. ( I mean the ones between the body and the lens .....)<br>

The AF105 2.8D Micro is a very nice lens, mine is ot equipped with image stabilisation, but i will not replace it.<br>

Best greetings for Pentacoste</p>

 

[bsd230]

<p>I would probably go with the 105 on the FX sensor. You can try the 60mm but it might be too wide on that sensor. You could maybe test it out at a local store and see what it is like. If it is going to be use for other things the 60mm might not be bad. The 105 would make a nice portrait lens on the D700.</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>I like old glass on my D700 and for my purposes the AI 55/3.5 and Ai 105/4.0 Micro-Nikkors are great. I paid about 45 Euros for the 55/3.5 and about 100 Euros for the 105/4.0. The Sigma AF-Macro 105/2.8 I've bought in the late 90s isn't a bad performer but I think about selling it to make room for a cheap manual 200/4.0 Micro-Nikkor in clearly visible used condition.<br>

georg</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>105 over 60 on FX for flowers. 60 would be better for copy work on FX. you might also want to consider the sigma 150. and, if you dont mind MF, the voigtlander 125 is supposed to be the best macro tele for nikon, bjorn rorslett loves it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 100mm f/2 ZF is the best lens I've used for close-up photography; it also finds itself as one of the highest quality lenses of any kind I've used (the 200mm f/2 AF-S would be its closest rival). The 85mm PC-E is great for situations in which tilt helps (i.e. subject is close to a plane in shape but cannot be shot perpendicularly, which happens to me a lot when shooting e.g. ice). The 85 PC-E would be ideally applicable for intermediate magnifications (i.e. 1:10) but for shooting at close to macro range, the Zeiss is easily better.</p>

<p>The 60mm AF-S is a great lens for both close-ups indoors as well as general photography - but its working distance for close-ups is very short, which makes it impractical for a lot of outdoor close-ups where you need to "let the light in".</p>

[marc_rochkind]

<p>I thought about all the options, and ended up with a new Tamron 90mm. I was much influenced by Thom Hogan's review. On his web site, look for the Nikon 105mm review. He reviews the Tamron at the end of that review.</p>

<p>The auto focus is problematical when you're in close, but there's so little depth of field then that manual focus is very easy, especially with the Live View on my D700.</p>

<p>When I'm in close and on a tripod and the object isn't blowing in the wind, I stop down all the way (f/32 or something like that).</p>

<p>--Marc</p>

 

[bsd230]

<p>I agree, in most cases you will be manually focusing anyway in macro photography. I used to own the 60mm which I used on my D200. I agree with Ilkka, the working distance does seem to affect the amount of light you can get into the lens.</p>

[jeffrey_aiello_photography]

<p>Hey everyone,<br>

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. great info and it gives me something to start with.<br>

<br />jeff</p>

 

[tan_nguyen9]

<p>I recently have the Nikon 55 3.5 AI which I prefer over 60 macro D and G version colorwise.</p>