Help choosing a macro lens

[bookbagged]

<p>I own a D5000 and I have the 18-55mm VR lens it came with, and a 55-200mm, as well. I am wanting to do more close up work, and I've never purchased a macro lens before. Does anyone have any recommendations for something that will give me good DOF without breaking the bank? I mostly do flower close ups but may go into other things as well. Your help is greatly appreciated!</p>

[acbeddoe]

<p>The AF-S 60mm f/2.8G is excellent on a DX body; the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G is a little long on DX.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Narrow DOF is always an issue with macro no matter which focal length you use. Working distance is an important consideration, depending on what you shoot. If you want AF - then you need an AF-S lens with the build-in motor. The AF-S 60/2.8 fits the bill and if you want a bit more working distance, have a look at the new Nikon DX lens - the 85/3.5 AF-S VR. For flowers, these are the very suitable. The Nikon 105/2.8 AF-S VR or even better the Sigma 150/2.8 HSM are better choices for insects.</p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p>" ... for something that will give me good DOF"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The depth of field for any lens (unless you buy a ultra-expensive tilt/shift lens), regardless of focal length, maker or cost is going to be exactly the same at the same close-up magnification and aperture.</p>

<p>Nikon has just announced a 85mm macro lens specifically for DX bodies, but it isn't available yet:<br>

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_micro85mmf_35g_ed_vr/index.htm</p>

<p>Because your body requires an in-lens focus motor (i.e. AF-S or third party equivalent) for autofocus, your options are somewhat limited if you want to retain autofocus capabilities.</p>

<p>You might also want to consider close-up diopter lenses (attach to your existing lenses like a filter). They work very well for three dimensional subjects like flowers, and are an inexpensive alternative to a dedicated macro lens.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>The Nikon 60/2.8G is probably a good choice, but I have not used it. I have the Zeiss ZF50/2, which has unusually good performance when stopped down to f/16, even f/22.</p>

[michael_tam1]

<p>I have the older version of Nikon 105 2.8D AF for many years with F90x body when starting out to learn the rope of more serious photography. With the equivant of FX, the new version of 105 2.8G is excellent for both portraits and macro, but with DX at the equivalent of 158mm, it is a bit long from the experience of a recent shoot at a local conservatory. If you are ever planning to upgrade to FX, one can never go wrong with the 105 2.8G VR if price is not a problem. On DX, I was able to do most of the shoot with my 50 1.8 prime with the equivalent of 75mm. It can close focus to, I believe, .45m or 1.5 ft, which is not bad. For flower photography, invest in an incident meter or at least a gray card to solve much exposure calculation problem with the wide variety of tonal color is also very useful.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I use all three macros - 60/105/200 and find the 105 the most useful overall. I prefer the longer working distance over the 60 and while it is "chunky", it's lighter and easier to use than the 200. All three have splendid image quality, but I rarely use the 60 and only carry it when I want a macro in my bag and don't expect to use it or need to travel light. I've also heard very good things about the Zeiss 100/2, although it only goes to 1:2.</p>

[jeannean_.]

<p>I'll ditto what Dieter and Michael Freeman said. I started with my 55-200mm VR with a Nikon 4T. I was pleased with the results. After deciding macros of insects was what I enjoyed shooting the most, I took the plunge and bought the Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro lens. I'm very happy with it. I need the extra length for the insects. I've been reading up on reversing a 50mm, and may try that as well (to increase magnification). There are a lot of options, so the best thing to do is to figure out what length is going to be best for you. If it's mostly flowers or non-moving objects, the 60mm is an excellent choice.</p>

[miklos_altorjay]

<p>The best value for money is the 55/3.5 or 2.8 ai and the 105/4 ai manual focus lenses. they usually run for 100$-180$ used (check keh.com for reference). I have the 105/4 and I can only say good things about IQ and working distance. IMHO its the cheapest way to the macro world.<br>

<br /> The downside is they only go to 1:2 in magnification and won't meter on your D5000 plus if you use an incident meter, light lost to extension has to be taken into account as these lenses use extension to achieve close focus.<br>

<br /> However if you are photographing flowers only, you can determine exposure by trial and error using the camera histogram. flowers wont go anywhere and retaking the photo is virtually free.<br>

Sadly macro lenses with metering and autofocus compatibility costs more money.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Nikon 60/2.8 G AF-S. A good lens for a reasonable price that will work nicely on your camera. I find that this focal length works very well for both macro and portraits.</p>

[joseph_massimino]

<p>I have the Nikon 105MM Macro, with VR and AF-s. It is very nice and well worth the money. If it is out of your budget range, I have another I am fond of, it is the Tokina F2.8 35mm macro. That one goes for $349 almost anywhere. It is bright and will focus in really tight spaces. I think I got it to focus an inch or so from subject. It's light and you can carry it as your standard lens, it does a nice job on most things when you don't need a zoom.</p>

[bookbagged]

<p>Thank you, everyone, for the responses and advice! I will definately be checking out your ideas!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I prefer the 90mm range. I still have my old Tamron SP90 man focus and it's great.</p>

[frankeleveld]

<p>It depends a bit on what you intend to shoot. If you just want to get close, a used 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor is a solid and cheap choice. I got mine, a mint, factory AI'd version for well under $ 90 - shipping included. Focus is manual, but it's a darn sharp lens. It only gets to 1:2 size by itself, but adding a PK-13 extension tube (which are also dead cheap) resolves that. The later 55/2.8 seem to suffer from the oily aperture blade problem, which means that sooner or later the lubricant for the aperture mechanism will spill on the blades, causing them to stuck which will lead to overexposed images - unless the lens has been serviced and the lubricant replaced with a new kind.</p>

<p>A disadvantage of (relatively) short focal-length macro lenses is that free working distance is very short, rendering lenses in the ~50 - ~100mm focal range less than ideal for macro work in the field. Renowned nature photographers shooting close ups tend to prefer good quality telephoto lenses with extension tubes and/or close-up lenses. A used 200/4 AI or 300/4.5 AI telephoto in excellent condition with a close up lens and a PN-11 is considerably cheaper than a new Micro-Nikkor and will give you better results in the field because FWD is much more comfortable.</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Both Nikon 105mm VR Micro and 200mm AF F4 Micro are extremely good. 200mm f4 one, gives you more working distance as well as exceptional sharpness corner to corner. If used with tripod, the 200mm can be used for general purpose or birds also. The sharpness of 200mm is so good that even if you crop the pictures the still maintain very good quality.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anirbanh/sets/72157622584976801/show/<br>

This lens is very exotic and hard to find a new one. Probably Nikon is going to discontinue this lens in near future and will come up with a cheaper G version.</p>

[commtrd]

<p>I have a 105VR and a Sigma 150 macro lens. Both very good lenses and highly desirable. I have found in my own macro shooting that I keep wishing I had a 200mm macro lens for best working distance in the field.</p>