Budget Macro with good results...

[kyle shortes]

Hey everyone, I'm looking for a good Macro lense that can give me better results

than my Tamron 70-3005.6, Its good but not the sharpest lens in the bag, my

budget is limiting (275 at msot) so if anyone can find anything out, let me

know! Thanks.

[mendonphoto]

Any prime lens (in decent shape) you can find will give you far superior results compared to the lens you mention. The sigma 105mm is about $350 new. There are others similarly priced. Perhaps you could find one used for less than $300 (on keh.com, for example). Or, maybe you could save your pennies a bit longer and get something new.

[michael_bradtke]

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=NA06000050500N&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=23&BC=NA&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

[joel_blacher]

You can find some great macros in your price range. I would recommend used lenses to maximize your funds. Macro primes are pretty easy to find on Ebay or the classifieds. My personal favorites are: Tamron 90mm f2.8 AF (any version), Tokina 100 ATX Pro (it is a newer lens so possibly tougher to find used), and Sigma 105EX. I have spent a lot of time with them all and they all are super lenses. I actually prefer those above to the Nikkor 105AFD in this focal length range. If you are willing to consider manual focus lenses (autofocusing is rarely used for macro work) then the the Micro-Nikkor 105 f4 is a standout in my experience. Good luck!

[paul_ferrante]

I just got a Sigma 105 EX Macro and it is an excellent lens. It is worth saving a couple more weeks to get it. I got it here http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/product-features.asp?id=964595488

$349.85 and free shipping. Google it a read some reviews, they are all very good.

[Michael R Freeman]

I've never used one, but the AF Tamron 90mm f/2.8 gets recommended time and time again by the macro gurus on this forum as an excellent lens for quality macro on a budget. It will certainly run circles around your 70~300mm zoom.

 

If your camera will meter with non-CPU lenses, then your options are greatly increased. Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 (under $125), Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 (under $150), Micro-Nikkor 105/4 (as per Joel, under $200) and Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 (under $300).

[dhgeyer]

Another vote for the Sigma 105 Macro. Not only is it a great macro lens, but it's also just a great lens. It is the sharpest lens I own, although I have to admit it's also the only non-zoom I own.

[Mary Doo]

"I'm looking for a good Macro lense that can give me better results...my budget is limiting (275 at msot)..."

 

To my knowledge the Vivitar 100mm macro (f/3.5 or f/2.8) is excellent. It is a manual lens, of course. There one at "that auction place" asking for less than $60 as I write.

 

Good luck,

Mary

[juanjo_viagran]

for around $300 you can get a Nikon 60mm AFD 2.8 MICRO.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/DSC_3128.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

60mm AFD/D70

[Mary Doo]

Re Vivitar 200mm at *Bay: Oops, sorry! It's not for Nikon. Keep looking though.

[bill_keane2]

The Sigma 50mm 2.8 will fit your bill nicely. It will produce excellent results and set you back about $270.00

[mjferron]

A used Nikon 60mm Micro is about as sharp as it gets. Better built than the 3rd party lenses as well.

[steve brown]

Here's my ultra cheap solution:

Nikkor AI 135mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 with a close-up dioptre/filter.

Limited DOF (which can be good).

Have used this on my D50 (in manual)lately and I really like it.

Better (than cheap pseudo-macro zooms.)

Plus you get a really sharp portrait/short tele.

My 1st post by the way - hi all!<div></div>

[steve brown]

BTW I realise the sharpness does not match areal macro but the very narroww dof does give a nice impressionistic close up effect.

[steve brown]

But also I think the sigma 50mm macro is A1.

On this budget snappers list.

[tom_jenner1]

You can pick up a tack sharp AIS 55/3.5 macro pretty cheap.

 

A 50/1.8 AF with extension tubes works good as a macro and is inexpensive.

 

The 60/2.8 macro would be hard to beat. As mentioned above, is has great build quality. I don't like how heavy it is as a walk around lens.

[User_502260]

I bought a Vivitar 100/3.5 (Cosina) macro lens with the 1:1 close-up lens in Canon FD mount from an eBay seller for $25. I already had the same lens in the same mount with the Promaster name. The price for that one must have been something less than $50. You can't pound nails with it but is quite sharp if it's closed down even a little. The lens is also sold under the Phoenix, Cosina and Soligor names.

 

The Nikon 3T/4T and 5T/6T close-up lenses and the Canon D close-up lenses are pretty expensive now but there are plenty of other 2 element close-up lenses with names like Konica, Minolta and Topcon floating around. The 55/2.8 macro lens with the Vivitar or Panagor names is also very good and goes to 1:1 (35mm film) without any additional tubes. There are also plenty of low priced 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors available.

 

If you're buying something new you might consider a Tamron 90mm f/2.8. I have the 90/2.5 SP Adaptall II (second version). It's very good but the newer 90/2.8 lenses are supposed to be even better.

[michaelschrag]

Don't forget to check KEH.com for used lenses, they have an excellent reputation.<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

<div></div>

[bsd230]

I would have to give another vote to the Nikkor 60mm Micro. I bought mine slightly used (less than a month old) on Ebay for $320.00. I love it, very sharp, also makes a nice portrait lens.

[joseph_passante]

KEH has two 55mm Nikkor micros for $235 (EX) and $265 (EX+). These are the first AF

models (55 F2.8 MICRO (62)). They are very good micros/

[john_n._wall]

Two recommendations -- for a prime macro on a budget you cannot go wrong with the Tamron 90mm macro.

 

A real alternative -- if you want to retain the range of your zoom lens -- is the Nikkor 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 with the 5T and 6T diopters. YOu can get one of these lenses in excellent condition from KEH for under $200 and the diopters should be available for about $50.

 

The zoom lens is an older lens (no longer in the Nikon line) but it is great for macro work -- it has a built-in tripod mount -- when used with the diopters. I know of at least one professional flower photographer for whom this is his standard set-up and he gets excellent results.

 

The next step is to read John Shaw on close-up photography.

[kyle shortes]

Wow, the Nikon 60 2.8 is amazing as is the Sigma 105, both VERY impressive results, I think I'm going to shoot for the Nikon, it seemed to be a tid bit sharper.

[michaelschrag]

"...Nikon, it seemed to be a tid bit sharper".

 

Kyle check out this website: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

Based on the photozone reviews there is really no difference between the 2 in terms of sharpness. If those are the 2 lenses you are considering then I would think about the working distance that you need. If you intend to take any shots of insects then IMO you should not consider anything less than 90 to 105mm. Also don't forget that good macro work is done most often on a tripod.

[arnabdas]

My most expensive macro lens cost me around $1400, since then I have found cheaper alternatives that perform admirably -- my latest lens bought used from KEH is one such cheap lens that couples great with Canon 500D. Cost me 43$ for a mint sample. This is currently the 9th lens in my lineup and the only non-macro/non-zoom. I'd happily use it in lieu of any other macro that I have.<div></div>