Nikon Macro & Telephoto lens ...do you recommend?

[brittany_mccoy]

<p>My equipment: D5000, standard 18-55mm lens, Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor Lens. I am looking for a macro and telephoto lens to add to my collection, what do you recommend (I am trying to stick to Nikon brands as I was suggested to on this board when I first bought my DSLR).<br>

Macro: I would like something I can use on people (newborn toes, eyes, etc) and also for close-up on flowers or plants.<br>

Telephoto: I would like something I can use for semi-long ranges (maybe a bird flying or someone playing football and me onthe sidelines). Something that would work with photograhing people when necessary.<br>

Ok recommendations start... & thanks in advance!</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Hi!<br>

I'm using a 55/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor for macro usage, it's good and affordable, and goes down to 1:1 with an appropriate extension tube. It is manual focus though, and you won't be able to meter with your D5000 (use the histogram for exposure). Not a fan of the 60/2.8 AF-D or 60/2.8 AF-S, tried 'em both not my cup of tea (color shift issues, sharpness at infinity etc)</p>

<p>Tele wise, what's your budget like? I have the 70-300VR as my VR tele-zoom, it's reasonably priced, good weight and well useful. I also use a 300/4 AF-S, it is awesome for shooting people - backgrounds melt - but the standoff distance is very annoying. A 70-300VR or perhaps the more affordable 55-200VR may be better bets.</p>

<p>My 2p.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[SCL]

<p>You didn't mention a budget, but the 105/2.8 AF-D Micro Nikkor is about as good as it gets...expensive, but you should be able to pick one up 2nd hand.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>there's actually no need to stick to the Nikon brand with macro lenses, as the third party variants are either cheaper or better or both in many cases. a bigger issue is probably figuring out what focal length suits you best. macro lenses range from 35mm to 200mm, so having an idea of the working distance you will need is important here. another issue is how you plan on using the lens. dedicated macro work involves tripods, ring lights, focusing rails, etc. more casual close-up photography doesn't necessarily need all that, but at extreme magnification, the longer the lens, the more camera shake will be an issue.</p>

<p>one important thing to note is that since you have a d5000, which has no internal focusing motor, to retain AF capabilities, you will need a lens with a built-in motor. this is not that crucial for true macro work, since manual focus/live view is best for critical focusing, but if you also want to use the lens for portraits and non-macro work, you may want the convenience and speed of AF.</p>

<p>for handheld macros, i can recommend the tokina 35mm/2.8 macro. it has the shortest focal length of any current macro lens, can do 1:1 magnification, and close-focuses to 5.5 inches. that's really close! it also has excellent bokeh, and at 1:1 retains an effective aperture of 3.3 (with macro lenses, the more magnified the image, the narrower the aperture number becomes. a 100mm macro might only be 5.6 at 1:1). what does this mean? it's excellent for available-light photography. it should certainly be good for baby pics, flowers, and product shots, and will also work as a normal lens. but it wont AF on a D5000, which could be a deal-breaker.</p>

<p>some other choices which will AF on a D5000 would be the Tamron 90mm, a legendary macro which now comes with a built-in motor, the Nikon 60mm AF-S, the Tamron 60/2, the Nikon 85/3.5 VR, and the Nikon 105/2.8 VR. as i said earlier, there's no real advantage to getting a Nikon over another brand in terms of optical quality. the 60mm tamron has an advantage over the 60mm nikkor in that it has a faster aperture, which helps for portraiture, where it will be 90mm equivalent on a DX body. f/2.0 is wider than f/2.8, so it will be better for low-light, and also reach the 'sweet spot' of optimal quality a little earlier. VR isnt utterly essential for a macro lens, but there are situations where it could conceivably be useful, although it wont replace a tripod for lessening camera shake. it adds a lot to the cost of the 105 macro, however, especially compared to the tamron 90 and other lenses in that class, while the slower max. aperture of the 85/3.5 VR makes it less attractive for non-macro photography, if only slightly. if VR is important to you, get the 85 or the 105, but there are better macro lenses out there. if i was in the market for a DX-only macro lens, i'd probably get the Tamron 60 for the f/2, a best-in-class spec.</p>

<p>as far as telephoto goes, if you want a zoom and you're not ready to shell out $2k+ for the 70-200 VRII, there are a few choices: the nikon 55-200 VR, nikon 55-300 VR, nikon 70-300 VR, and tamron 70-300 VC. there's also a sigma 70-300 semi-macro which does not have stabilization, which i would avoid. optically, the tamron is the best of the bunch and has the best iteration of stabilization as well. the IQ is quite impressive, even wide open. just behind that is the nikon 70-300 VR, then the 55-200 VR, then the 55-300 VR. personally, i would go for either the tamron or nikon 70-300s, and pair that with the 18-55. the 55-70 gap is fairly non-essential. if it comes down to budget, the 55-200 VR is cheaply-constructed but has a decent optic, especially stopped down. however, having that extra 100mm will make a difference for outdoors pics. a stabilized 70-300 should work well for people and sports shots during good light.</p>

<p> </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I agree, Nikon is not the be all, end all. I just got the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro for about $400 with $100 rebate and so far it's looking very good. It goes 1:1 with no added devices, has auto focus motor and only needs a 55mm filter. It's also going to be great for portraits. And another agreement for the Nikon 70-300 VR, it's very sharp (mine right out to 300mm) and fast.</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>If you just want to try macro occasionally, perhaps you should try extension tubes or a close up filter on your existing lenses? If you have the VR version of the 18-55, it focuses quite close as it is. If you are getting another lens, since you already have 50mm covered twice, it would seem a waste to get another lens overlapping that range. The Nikon 85VR and 105VR have VR, which will be helpful if you are not planning to use a tripod and flash. If you can skip VR (and it really is useful) then there are lots of alternatives. <br /> The 105VR is also a useful short telephoto lens that will double for some of your other requirements, although it will not be useful for birds. The obvious telephoto options for you are 55-200VR or 55-300VR or 70-300VR. The 70-300 is bigger, more expensive, handles better and faster. If you are serious about bird photography, however, then the question is, how good do you want your bird photos to be, and how much money do you have?</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>The best Nikon macro lens is the AF-D 200mm Mico Nikkor. 1:1 close up photos and 200mm telephoto all in one.</p>