Recommend a Macro Lens for Use on a D90?

[birdied]

<p>Anthony, I have both the 60mm and 105 VR, both are great lens.<br>

In my portfolio, the reflections/refractions and water drops are with the 60mm <br>

Most of the flowers are with the 105VR. <br>

You will not be disappointed with either lens. <br>

Best ,<br>

Roberta</p>

<p> </p>

[yuri_sopko]

<p>The longer the focal length the greater the working distance. And, the working distance is usually stated as from the front lens element which may end up being an inch from the filter ring on the lens! I had a Nikon 60mm macro but returned it as it was very difficult to use as I approached 1:1. This can be an issue with bugs as they will certainly notice you and also an issue with lighting. You will need more lighting with macro unless you always shoot when its only perfect. Awesome bokeh though.</p>

<p>I ended up buying a Sigma 150/2.8 macro lens and I love it. I have a massive working distance, about 11", from the front lens element. This allows me plenty of room to work with as far as positioning is concerned as you will probably need a tripod and X-Y stage to control position and focus. As you approach 1:1 your exposure time will increase making handheld difficult at time. This working distance also allows for plenty of ambient light to get in without worries of casting a shadow.</p>

<p>I have heard good things about the Nikon 105 VR macro lens but I do not think it's worth to spend the money on it as the VR portion will not be used tripod mounted. And, I'd be surprised if you could get 1:1 even with VR on unless you had some good lighting going on.</p>

<p>From my personal experience I would say try and borrow other peoples lenses. See if a shop will let you put them on your body in store and bring things to shoot. But, I would also say not to go below 90mm. Working distance is too short.</p>

 

[steven_p]

<p>"Steve, know where I can see some sample shots with this lens?"</p>

<p>Anthony,</p>

<p>I usually suggest a good performer that doesn't break the bank for someone just getting their feet wet with close-up photography. I currently play with several dedicated macro lenses, have used tubes, bellows, diopters, reversed and stacked lenses. All have their strengths and some weaknesses.</p>

<p>I have many photos buried in my Lightroom archives, but I don't have them tagged by the lens used. If it's a good day tomorrow I'll take a few and email a link with a full sized jpeg, if that's OK.</p>

<p>I feel that uploaded sample pictures are not real helpful for determining lens resolution. If you do a search on p.net for "vivitar. cosina, promaster" 100mm/3.5, it gets a good report. The build quality isn't it's strongest point, but it is quite sharp. Though the price I linked is OK, it can be had at times for less.</p>

<p>(I got hooked on pixel-peeping, viewing color positive film on a projection screen a long time ago.)</p>

<p> </p>

[mtmixon]

<p>I have the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and have been very pleased with it. It is extremely sharp, and it renders colors beautifully. A high-quality lens for a very reasonable price.</p>

[tveck]

A 105mm macro lens, I have sold it, is too sort for insects. Nowadays I use a Nikon 180/2.8 lens with macro-tubes which works much better. For the other macro-things I use my Nikon 60/2.8D. Sometimes I use a Nikon AF 35-70/2.8 lens (second had for about $250) with a 35mm macro switch, it is not a real macro (just 2:1) but that is not always needed.

I have also some close-up filters, but I do not use them anymore. There are lots of ways to make macro's, but I would start with a more or less cheap one, a choice like my second hand 35-70 is my advice.

[plasma181]

<p>To further confuse matters, there is a very low cost option. Get a lens connector ( or whatever they call it. ) The first lens is mounted to the camera normally, then the connector, then a second lens is mounted backwards. The connector joins the lenses filter thread to filter thread. If the 2 lenses are of equal focal length, you will get about 1:1 magnification. ( It will vary depending on how the lenses are focused. ) If the outer lens is of shorter focal length than the inner, you can actually get greater than 1:1. </p>

[woolly1]

<p>Starting at the lowest cost ...</p>

<p>1 BR2 adapter and reverse the 50mm/1.8 AF-d<br>

2 Buy some cheap extension tubes .... and a flash<br>

3 Bellows Nikon PB-4 or PB-6 and El-Nikkor 50mm/2.8 or Schneider Kreutznach 50mm/2.8<br>

4 Tamron SP90/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro (easily a match for the Nikkor 105 plus a better bokeh for general use)</p>

<p>I have and use all five above plus a 55mm/2.8 and a Nikkor 105mm/2.8 AF-d both of which are stunning.<br>

After you get into it you'll find that lighting problems, DOF and defraction are you constant companions! :)</p>

<p>This is a good guide to cheap macros ... <a href="http://macrobellowsphotography.blogspot.com/">http://macrobellowsphotography.blogspot.com/</a></p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

[tony12tt]

<p>I fully agree with proponents of the 105mm VR, the sample shots I saw were technically clean and sharp. Im actually eager to see some samples of the 55mm 3.5, sharpness is a major concern for me and like I said, I can live without Autofocus. David, the filters I used before and sometimes now are close up filters (Opteka brand). The problem is that I end up getting a realtively high amount of chromatic aberration /colour fringing and the shots are a bit noisier than Im willing to accept. Steven, I'd greatly appreciate that link to your shots. Also, I've no prpblem buying used provided its in good-great condition.<br>

From all the feedback I've gotten it seems that the top choices so far (with my lousy budget) are :<br>

55mm f/3.5, 60mm f/2.8, Tamron 90mm f/2.8, and Vivitar 100mm.<br>

I actually had no idea the range of choices was so expansive</p>

[tony12tt]

<p>Clive, excellent link. Thanks.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Tokina 100 f/2.8 macro. Not mentioned often, but a very nice option. Not very expensive.</p>

[arnabdas]

<p>"whats a reasonable (price and quality) macro lens I can get for the D90"<br>

<br />The Tamron 90/2.8 SP AF macro comes to mind. One of the more versatile macro lenses in the medium tele category. Very lightweight (I am about to switch to m4/3 and lightweight macro lenses are of special value to me now) and doesn't not need a lens hood. Exceptionally nice background renditions.<br>

<br />Ok -- what's most exciting about this lens is that it mates beautifully with the Tamron SP AF 1.4x teleconverter to give some impressive max-mag/working distance. For all practical purposes -- no optical degradation is observed at f5.6 and less.<br>

<br />The following photo was shot using Tamron 90mm/f2.8 + Tamron SP AF 1.4x -- straight from raw, no color manipulation or sharpening anywhere. D200 @ ISO100 raw</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4547439511_c9d84d87cb_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And here is the 100% crop -- again, unmanipulated</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4547447141_e6567d7bc2_o.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The new 85mm micro nikkor looks good too but I do not have first hand experience with it -- if you get it remember that it isn't really usable on FF DSLRs. The Sigma 105/2.8 is sharp but has harsh OOF renditions sometimes. Tokina M100 ATX Pro D is good but has relatively more CA compared to other macro lenses in similar FLs.</p>

 

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>The longer the focal length the greater the working distance. And, the working distance is usually stated as from the front lens element which may end up being an inch from the filter ring on the lens! I had a Nikon 60mm macro but returned it as it was very difficult to use as I approached 1:1. This can be an issue with bugs as they will certainly notice you and also an issue with lighting. You will need more lighting with macro unless you always shoot when its only perfect. Awesome bokeh though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yuri (and anyone else)... can you tell me if you were using APS-C or full frame? I'm shopping for a macro lens and I'm concerned about focal length as well, so when I hear statements such as "don't go under XXmm" it's very confusing as to what's ideal when dealing with a 1.5x multiplier as I will be.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>One advice with D90: metering will not work with older (pre-AF) lenses like the 55/3.5 micro.<br>

Take a look at Tamron 60/2 (DX). It is a nice little lens with twice the working distance of the Nikkor AF-S 60/2, quite pleasant bokeh and very well controlled CA, and also doubles as a portrait prime (instead of the 50/1.8). Mind that the max aperture of the Nikon mount version seems to be actually somewhere near F/2.4 instead of F/2. And that AF is too slow for moving objects due to the lack of the AF limit switch (but many macros share this issue). Some samples, and comparison to 50/1.8 on tubes, at: <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=35099206">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=35099206</a> <br>

Macros with longer focal lengths provide more working distance (*generally*) and blurring of the background; but they are larger & heavier, worse suited for handheld work and require larger flash setups for proper diffusion of light. Essentially you should figure out what perspective you prefer; the working distance is a major factor only if you are into bugs and snakes.</p>