Which Macro Lens?

[haslamphotography]

<p>I have been looking into various macro lenses mainly for flowers, bugs, and food. There are so many options (Nikon's 60 & 105, Tamron 90, Sigma 105, and Tokina 100) in addition to get something like the Canon 500D. The prices for the lenses above really vary, but all seem to get good reviews. Please help. <br>

I currently have a D300 with an Nikon 18-200, 50 1.8, 50 2.0 MF and 100 2.8 MF lenses and 2 SB800's. I mainly shoot sports so I was also thinking of something to use for baseball in the spring and summer, so something with good auto focus abilities or am I asking for too much in a macro/baseball lens? <br>

Thank you.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>You forgot about the Sigma 70 and the Sigma 150. ;-) The Nikon 105 VR will probably give you the best image quality followed by the Tamron 90. The Sigma 150 is also right there and I have no personal experience with the Sigma 70 but read a lot of good things about it.<br>

Right there I just confused you more than ever. All of them are so good that you can pretty much close your eyes and choose and you won't regret any one of them.<br>

Now, if you want to take picture of baseball that is a different answer. Assuming you will want to bring the action closer you will want a longer focal length. The 105 VR is very nice because of the vibration reduction feature in the far away shots. The Sigma 150 is very nice because of the focal length. <br>

Since you are using a cropped sensor D300 I will recommend the Nikon 105 VR AF-S. It will be a great addition to what you already owned.</p>

[chris_werner]

<p>I can't speak to the autofocus editions, but I recently picked up a used 105 f4 Micro AIS from KEH to use with my D300 and have been delighted with it. VEry sharp, well built, easy to focus. I settled on it in large measure due to it being highly recommended here.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, and with the caveat that I haven't shot a lot of sports, I've found autofocus to help as much as it hurts in sports photography <em>for me</em> . That's clearly a function of my being more comfortable with predicting the spot to focus on and not being comfortable with the vagaries of autofocus in a fast moving situation. So I'm not trying to argue the benefit of autofocus. I'm just noticing that half of your existing lenses are manual focus (not sure which you are using for sports), and suggesting that the autofocus is not necessarily the panacea it might seem to be.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>And let's not forget the Nikon 200 f/4 D Micro.<br>

For macro the Nikon AF 105 f/2.8 or 105 VR seem like the best choices. I am talking about macro.<br>

Macro/baseball? Maybe the 200 coz its range. You get 300 mm crop on your camera.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>IMHO, Sport and macro don't mix well. If you don't set focus limit, a macro lens can and will hunt. If you set the focus limit, they typically have less focus precision from 1:10 to infinity then a normal lens. If you move indoor, you loose a stop or more. The over correct design also doesn't do as well isolating the back ground crowd form the subject. The list go on, unless of-course you are covering an ants marathon. </p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>What kind of food photography are you referring to? That is because if you are taking your food while dining, the 60mm would probably be the most ideal. The 105mm may be a little too long and it may seem a little odd if you stand between tables to photograph.</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>I dont shoot macro so I can't help much there, but I can say that something around 100mm, even on a cropped sensor, is not going to be long enough for baseball or any large field sport for that matter. The holy grail in a zoom would be something like the AF-S 70-200 VR. I can tell you that at 200mm on a cropped sensor, this will comfortably cover the infield, assuming that you are shooting from behind 1st or 3rd base, or shooting from behind home plate looking outward. However, you will still need more reach if you want to cover the outfield. If you are typically shooting in the bright afternoon sun, then the AF-S 70-300 VR is a more cost-effective solution. Although it doesnt focus as fast as the 70-200, and is only f/5.6 on the long end, the extra reach will be useful for covering a larger percentage of the field from a single vantage point.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>For bugs, you might want something a little longer, like the 105. Something like the 60 should be very usable for flowers and foods; and for foods its shorter FL could be an advantage. I've never used the Sigmas, Tamrons, and Tokinas, but I found both the AF-S 60 micro and the 105 VR micro to be ridiculousy sharp. (although aside from their different FL, their respectaive images don't have the same look)</p>

<p>>> "I mainly shoot sports so I was also thinking of something to use for baseball in the spring and summer'</p>

<p>This is where things are going to get tricky. It seems that most sports shooters would prefer a 70-200 type of lens for that job; while some of them would use up to a 300 mm/400 mm lens to "reach" the subjects. It depends on the look you want and how far you're going to be from your subjects.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think it's best to get separate lenses for close-ups and sports.</p>

<p>Lenses I can recommend for close-ups would be the 60mm AF-S, the 85mm PC-E, and the 100mm ZF.</p>

<p>For sports you may want a 70-200/2.8 AF-S type lens, or maybe a fast short tele prime like an 85/1.4 for indoor shooting. The 105 AF-S is an option for doing both sports and close-ups with one lens if you need to save money and don't need the best quality.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Ben, I think it depends on how close you are to the action in baseball and how tight you want your shots. I picked up a Tamron 90mm macro, great lens but my alternative use is head-and-shoulders portraits, not baseball. </p>

<p>For baseball, I would want something longer. Much longer. The last time I went to a game, I used an 80-400 and it was still difficult to get those tight shots of a batter, pitcher, etc. Obviously it depends on where you are sitting/standing. If this has to be a lens that serves double duty, the best out there is either Nikon's 200mm or Sigma's 150 but you may have to do a lot of cropping.</p>

 

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>I should have qualified my statement concerning a baseball lens. I was assuming that it was something like youth or HS baseball where you are relatively close to the field. If you are talking about photographing in a MLB stadium, the Bruce makes a very good point and you are going to need some much longer still.</p>

 

[haslamphotography]

<p>Thank you for your input. It answers my second question of using the same lens for macro and sports. I really would love a 70-200 VR. I am leaning towards the Tamron 90 over the Nikon 105 VR due to cost. I might search eBay for a while for the Nikon 105 AF-D which appears in the $400 range used. Any food shots will be at home as well as most flowers. Thanks again.</p>

[leonard_forte1]

<p>I finally settled on the sigma 105 macro and find it very sharp. I got one in nearly new condition for $240.</p>