micro lense

[paolo_pescia]

<p>Hallo to everyone, recently I posted a question about a micro lens that i m not totally satisfied, I'm wondering about some of the micro lenses, I would like to shoot flowers and details... but i also don t want to spend 1000 dollars, I have a nikon d 40 and 700, i was wondering for a focal around 105 mm... do you have any idea that can be affordable please?<br>

regards paolo </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Nikon's 105mm f2.8 AF lens will be perfect for you. And is can be purchased used for about $400 - $500 depending on the condition. It will not AF on the D40 but you don't need AF for macro and I suspect you would likely only use it on the D700 anyway.</p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>thanks, i heard about it, but i would like to know if with the 105 mm nikkor 2.8 af the light meter from the camera works because i used a old lens full manual that didn t worked the camera light meter and you must know each exposure or use a light meter</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Paolo, on the previous thread you mentioned a D40 and a D300... now D40 and "700". I wonder if there is a typo anywhere.<br /> The D40 and D300 are DX, the D700 is FX. Some advice could differ, depending on the format you use, both DX and FX, or DX only.<br /> BTW, any MF or AF Nikkor will meter in either the D300 and D700, and are AF with any AF type lens. The D40 does not meter with MF lenses, nor AF with non-AFS lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You can use an old Manual Focus lens on that D300 and meter, but not auto-focus. It would be a great way to photograph flowers. I use a 55mm f3.5 that was only a little over 100 dollars on my D90. It does GREAT. NO metering or AF, but for something that is not moving, that really does not matter.</p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>sorryyyy i m tired i have written the wrong camera, seriously is the 300 if this is important for you... for me in this moment is important to have an idea about the micro lens, sorry for the mistake</p>

[SCL]

<p>I use the D300 and the 105/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor pretty frequently. It autofocuses and meters fine with this body, although I think you'll find the autofocus mode less useful as you get familiar with the lens, especially as you approach 1:1 magnification.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I have a 105VR which is a great all purpose lens, and provides reasonably good images up to 1:1. It is the only 105mm lens that will work with full capabilities on your D40 (meter and AF). But if I`m exclusively shooting macro, I`d certainly prefer an old MF Micro-Nikkor, with sometimes better or at least the same image quality at that higher magnifications (up to 1:2, or 1:1 with an extension ring).</p>

<p>Do you use the hystogram? It is the best tool to achieve the perfect exposure (even with non-metering, MF lenses).</p>

[paolo_pescia]

<p>thanks to all, Jose i rarely use the hystogram but i m learning how to use it, i always use light meter </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Since this is usually worth saying when macro lenses are discussed, also consider the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm and Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro lenses. All are well-regarded (much more so than most third-party lenses), I believe all will autofocus on the D40 (I only have direct experience with the Tamron) and all are significantly cheaper than a new Nikkor - and I believe they're considered to be better than the 85mm micro Nikkor if you're tempted to go low-budget. If you're prepared to buy second-hand, the older 105mm Nikkor might be a viable option - neither VR nor AF-S are all that useful at macro range, although the AF-S VR lens is probably more useful for doubling as a portrait lens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>andrew, the tokina, tamron and sigma 90-105 macros are all good choices. i have the tokina but it doesnt have a built-in motor. neither does the sigma. and the tamron has more than one version, so you'll need the latest motorized one for full AF compliance with both a d40 and d300.</p>

<p>i just read what thom hogan had to say about the 85 nikkor, which concurred with my thoughts. i would only buy that if brand loyalty is more important than image quality. i would at least want metering in a macro lens, and also find that AF doesn't help that much past 1:2. VR is important only if you also want to do portraits, but is extraneous for pure macro.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric - thanks for the correction; that'll teach me to talk about lenses that I don't own. My version of the Tamron certainly does have a motor; it hadn't occurred to me that the Sigma wouldn't, because the 150mm Sigma macros that I'd looked (longingly) at both *do* have HSM, and once you've got to put a motor in for Canon's sake you'd think it'd be worth adding one for Nikon. Oh well.<br />

<br />

I've heard mostly bad things about the 85mm micro, but then since I don't shoot DX I'd not even consider it. I recently spent some time watching my Tamron fight my F5, and confirm that in the macro range, manual focus (probably with focus confirmation in the finder, or live view) is your friend. As for VR, the lens wasn't moving nearly so much as the flowers I was trying to shoot; other subjects may be more amenable. Canon's latest 100mm macro has some extra stabilisation magic to make it useful in the macro range, and it's also had some good reviews (especially on DPReview), but I wouldn't suggest jumping system just to get it. :-)</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>My favorite Micro-Nikkor is the 105mm f/4 AI-S. </p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>My favorite Micro-Nikkor is the 105mm f/4 AI-S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had that lens and just sold it. It had a bit of fungus in it and I couldn't bear to not be able to afford the huge repair bill to get it repaired (tear down of this lens is a Big Job). I still have my 55mm f2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor and love it. Don't have any use for anything else.</p>