Help me pick a lens for macro work (Nikon user)

[jeannean_.]

<p>I'm a newbie at photography, but after several months of shooting various things, think macro photography is calling my name louder than any other area (specifically bugs). I really enjoy taking close up pictures and seeing what these critters look like "up close and personal". I've tried to read up on the best set up for someone like me, but in reality, I've just become more confused. One PN member recommended I get a Nikon 4T to go along with my 55-200mm VR and that's been great, but think I want more. I'm shooting with a Nikon D40 and mostly the 55-200mm for close ups (with the T4 now I have that). I'm a hobbyist, so would prefer not to spend a couple of grand on a lens that is just enjoyment for me, but am not opposed to spending a moderate amount (less than a grand- but of course would prefer the cheapest that would do the job for me). While I find AF and VR helpful for zoom, I'm mostly shooting with the 4T/55-200mm in manual mode and handheld. Having a lens meter is helpful, but I suppose it's not totally necessary either since I'm not wasting film. I have a tripod, but would like to get by without using it on a consistent basis if I can (most recommend tripod use for macro work and I do understand this...but sometimes it's not feasible while on a walk). I can easily get within a foot of most of what I've shot so far(moving slowly and patiently), but much closer is iffy depending on the subject, so anything less than 105mm propbably won't cut it for me. I would appreciate any advice in helping to make a decision on a lens. I've uploaded a few photos I've taken with the 55-200 and the 4T so you can get an idea of what I like to shoot. All of them were in manual mode/manual focus, handheld during walks, cropped some (but not a lot). This bee pic is one of the examples and was taken on a little flower about the size of a dime in real life (and the bee is one of the small guys). Again, I appreciate any input.<br>

<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9636171-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="510" /></p>

<p> </p>

[squeri]

<p>Hi Jeannean, I just started using a sigma 105 macro I picked up from KEH for about $365. It's much harder to use than I thought. Very shallow depth of field which makes for very hard focusing. I also didn't have enough light so I started using my old sunpak. I've only had the oportunity to try it a few times, but things are progressing. Below is one of my better shots with it at 1/30, f11 using a d40 and the flash on camera. <br />I also got a lot of info from this site: <a href="http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23">http://www.dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23</a> . The top link titled brian valentine has some good info.<br>

edit: hmm, can't insert pics like I'm used to. Here's a link to it.<br>

<a href="http://s562.photobucket.com/albums/ss69/jsqueri/nature/?action=view&current=DSC_5849crop.jpg">http://s562.photobucket.com/albums/ss69/jsqueri/nature/?action=view&current=DSC_5849crop.jpg</a></p>

[sandysocks]

<p>105mm is pretty versatile, but for an insect specialty, I would go for something in the 150-200mm range. With my 200 micro I find I can sit back and work insects with a tripod fairly often. The 200mm is a good butterfly lens. If you are willing to put your body on the ground, you will find that there are many ways to prop a lens for added steadiness. So a tripod is not required unless shooting before sunrise, in the rain, small apertures or something like that.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Jeannean, save up for the 300mm AF-S f/4 it works great for these kinds of things. There was a thread within the last month asking the same question. I put a lot of shots in that thread. Do a search & I'm sure you'll find it.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>Jeannean, I have 105mm f/2.8 micro with D700 and it is great for table-top kind of subject. For that purpose 60mm macro, which I used to own should be better with DX body. But for the kind of work you aim, you may need longer one.... 200 or 300 macro must be great but I have never tried either. 105mm VR happens to work with TC II teleconvertors and may be worth trying. I wish I could be of more help. I do macro, but only in room, not outside :-) Good luck!</p>

[peter]

<p>OK. I have owned the 105mm f4 AIS and would say its the sharpst lens I have owned. I recently sold it to buy the 105mm f2.8 AF D as its more versatile. Will I regret it. It is too early to say. But i can say that while the f4 lens is not all that often up for grabs on eBay when you do find it it does for an OK price so its worth considering. From what I ahve seen the AF D version is good - whether its as good I cannot yet say. But you should consider it as the price is not over the top. I alos have the 55mm 2.8 AF and can say its an excellent genral purpose micro lens but as you think its too short I will not recommend it for you.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you use manual focus (and for macro work, yeah, that's the usual), the Tamron 90mm gets a lot of praise, and the Tokina 100mm is also worthy of praise. Both are very sharp lenses, for relatively affordable prices.</p>

<p>But for bugs, they do tend to be a bit short at times, I never managed to go 1:1 with insects with my Tokina 100, since I shoot them "in the wild" (no capturing and freezing for me). Close-ups to 1:3 magnification is very do-able, but much closer it becomes increasingly difficult.<br>

So you may want/need a longer lens. The AF-S 300 Lil suggests is one sweet lens, and it does get down to 1:3 magnification, but given the picture you show, that may not be enough. So a real dedicated macro would make a bit more sense, I think. One affordable option I can think of is the Tamron 180mm f/3.5. As far as I know, tests are positive but since I never even saw the lens, better to have an extra look yourself too. The ideal lens, in my opinion, would probably be the Nikon 200mm f/4, but that's outside the $1000 budget I fear.</p>

<p>Great picture of the bee, by the way!</p>

[jeannean_.]

<p>Thank you all for the responses! Looks like I still need to do a bit more research. This has been very helpful. I most likely need to reign in my enthusiasm a bit, and learn more before I buy. :)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>On DX I prefer to work in the 55 to 75 mm range, but sometimes 105 comes in handy. In practice, I don't do insects that much, so you might be leaning more toward longer focal lengths.<br>

At around 100 mm, the current quality kings are the Zeiss 100/2 and Nikkor 105/2.8 VR. The Zeiss is a more "serious" macro, while the Nikkor is more optimized for all-around shooting. The older Nikkor 105/4 is a lens I use, it's actually quite pleasant ergonomically and costs a lot less than those previously mentioned lenses. Quality is excellent in the 1:5 to 1:10 range. The Tamron 90/2.8 has a good reputation, but haven't tried it personally. The 105/4 doesn't shorten when focusing and thus it gives a good working distance on DX.<br>

You might also want to consider going longer. The Nikkor 200/4 is more rare than the shorter lenses, but has an excellent reputation. If I had spare cash I might buy one :-)</p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>I use the Tamron 90. It's an amazing lens considering the price. I picked up the non-motorized version for less than $200, and it's tack sharp. What's even better is that I can slap a Kenko 1.4 TC on it, and it works just as well - with no loss of IQ. Here's a couple samples:</p>

<p><img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/BourbonCowboy/-5331.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And here's a crop of the same shot...</p>

<p><img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/BourbonCowboy/-5331crop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[bob_foster2]

<p>Look at the Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro along with the Sigma 1.4 TC. You won't find a better combo for everyday insect/flower close-up photography.</p>

 

[bonnie_c1]

<p>Jeannean - I just found this thread and wondering if you have made any progress with your research? I have a D80 and do insect macro and have been struggling with this same decision. So far I have NO macro lens but have decided on the Sigma150mm 2.8. I see Bob's additional 1.4 TC above so may add that one, too. Anyway, will be interested in what you decide. </p>

[jeannean_.]

<p>Bonnie, I went with the Sigma 150mm and am very happy with it. I'm planning on getting the Sigma 1.4 TC as Bob suggested, soon. I can get a 1:1 ratio fairly easily with most bugs with this lens, but would like to get a bit more magnification. I'm glad I went with the 150mm for the working distance. For the flying type bugs (dragonflies, etc), I'm pretty sure if I was much closer to them, they'd take off. I only shoot "in the wild" and it takes patience and time to get close enough for 1:1, and doubt I could do it with less working distance. (Sorry this reply is a bit late.)</p>

[bonnie_c1]

<p>Jeannean ,<br>

Thanks for your input, late is better than never especially since I am still saving for the lens (other bills keep getting in the way!). I had pretty much decided on this lens but this really helps to cement it. I love your photos and we do have a passion for close ups of the 6-leggeds of the world. I have been shooting for a long time but just with my trusty Nikon CoolPix Cameras. Now that I have my D80 I am dying to get a good macro. After looking at your photos my mind is made up.</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

Bonnie</p>