Macro

[sheila_rotondi]

<p>I'm fairly new to photography and am interested in buying a macro lens for my Nikon D5100. I'd like to stay under $1,000. I'm confused by the Tamron, Sigma or Nikkor options. I would also like the lens to be used for portraits. I'd appreciate your suggestions. Thanks.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Your budget is quite generous.... with such ammount you can buy a good, complete macro setup including tripod, focusing rail and the lens as well.<br>

Are you more inclined by more "serious wildlife" shooting (insects, flowers... ) or by portraiture? Or maybe you just want a polyvalent lens?</p>

[richard_thomas9]

<p>For DX, focal length of the Nikon 60 2.8G would be perfect for both macro and portraiture. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'd disagree with the previous post. The ideal focal length for macro depends a lot on the subject. A 60mm lens would be far to close to the subject (at the closest focus distances) to comfortably work with small living animals, for example.<br>

For portraits, it's a matter of style and preference. Some people like to be close to the subject when they make a portrait, and 40 or 60mm may work well for them. Some like to keep distance, and 100mm might work better. There is no perfect focal length which works for everybody.</p>

<p>Sheila, it's not clear which lenses you already have, but try to determine with those first which focal length would suit you best, and consider which kind of macro-subjects you're most interested in (insects, flowers, or a mixture of it all). Once you know which length would work best for you, choices become a lot easier. And as Jose said, do think of a tripod if you do not have one.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you're shooting critters moving, get 105 or longer (the Tamron 90 is okay, too).</p>

<p>If you're shooting still images, I'd get a used 55mm f2.8 or f3.5 manual focus AND a used longer lens (like the Tamron 90 or older Nikon 105.</p>

<p>But only if you have an awesome tripod. You need that badly for this.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>(I think) you have a need for the AF-S type Micro-Nikkor lens to make your life in the macro world easier.</p>

<p>There are a couple of choices: the AF-S 40mm DX, the AF-S 60mm, the AF-S 85mm DX, and the AF-S 105mm lenses.</p>

<p>You may get one and see how well it works, but as the others have posted, it all depends on what your favorite subject is.</p>

<p>- - -<br /> As for portrait use. You may consider looking at the Tiffen line of filters and figure out which *strength* you may need to put on your Micro-Nikkor lens. Shooting close-up portraits of a lady will not be a super idea with each pore of her skin turning out sharp-as-a-Nikkor-lens can record it on your digital sensor.</p>

<p><br /> (Yes, you can tone down a image in Photoshop, but using a soft-focus filter [lightly] will make for less time on your computer fixing up your images.)</p>

<p> </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Here is one example of what a AF-S VR 85mm f3.G DX Micro-Nikkor lens can do...</p><div></div>

[orcama60]

<p>Hi Sheila, I use two lenses for macro : Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 VR or Sigma 150 mm f/2.8. Both are great lenses. I commonly use the Sigma from a distance if I want to shoot insects, butterflies, etc. For flowers, and others, the Nikon 105. Here are a couple of shots taken with both lenses but honestly I do not know if they will work with your camera. </p><div></div>

[orcama60]

<p>Here is the other shot with the Nikon 105 ....</p><div></div>

[dan_mccarty1]

<p>I have the old Nikon 105/f2.8 lens. The newer lens with VR will help take some images without the use of a tripod, but to really use the lens, you will need a good tripod and head. Rails would be nice as well but a tripod and head will be required. I have a Benbo tripod that is big and heavy but it is stable as can be while being incredibly adjustable. The tripod can adjust so that the camera is over my head or a few inches off the ground to get a close up of a flower.</p>

<p>The 105 focal length is good as an all around lens as well as macro shots. It is long enough to give you some space between you and the subject. I have always wanted the 200/F4.0 but the 105 has worked just fine and fit nicely into my lens inventory. </p>

<p>I have found the 105/F2.8 to be a very useful lens. Macro photography is interesting because you usually do not have to go far to find an interesting subject. </p>

<p>Later,<br>

Dan</p>

[nsfbr]

Taking what you say at face value, that you have $1000 + want to do macro and portraits, I can't imagine there is any

debate - the 105mm VR is the right lens. It is the sharpest macro going, is a great portrait lens, has a very good VR

(mainly for that portrait work) and is AF-s, so will work on any modern nikon. Its ONLY shortfall in my view is the extent to

which is focus breathes, which does complicate focus stacking a bit. Other than that, I'd go for that lens without

hesitation. It will outlast your camera, that's for sure.

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I have the old 55mm 3.5 Micro Nikkor and love it. But when you're down to 1:2 or 1:1 you're right on top of the subject matter to the point sometimes of blocking the light. I would prefer something in the 100-105 range. IMHO, AF is an option in macro work and VR not necessary at all. Reason is that macro is generally done on a tripod. And it's slow, methodical work where you have plenty of time to focus. And since only a narrow range is in focus, you have to choose very carefully where you want the focus point to be rather than letting the AF decide.</p>

[bms]

<p>+1 on the 105. Love on FX and DX. But if you want to "get your feet wet" and do not have a tripod yet, a good copy of the 55mm Micro does not cost much as gets you a long way. Get a sturdy tripod. VR and AF are great, but VR is useless in Macro and you can well do without AF, too</p>

 

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Sheila, see this previous post from April 2012 on the same subject.<br /> <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aFvJ">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aFvJ</a><br /> In my opinion, the working distance of the lens from the subject is very important. Some subjects need more, some need less. The longer focal length macro lenses have greater working distances. The macro lenses starting around 150mm in length have tripod collar mounts, a feature I find to be critical for 90% of my macro shooting. VR and AF are not that important for macro (in fact not important at all if you use a tripod), but they might be needed for portrait work if done with or without a tripod. Both Sigma and Tamron make very good macro lenses. I think the Sigma 150mm f 2.8 macro is one of the best macro lenses made. You need to decide what "portrait" means to you and what focal length will produce the type of portraits you want to take. Then see if there is a macro lens of that same focal length or near to it. I am guessing the range might be 85mm to 120mm, but only you can determing this. It might be 150mm --200mm. Joe Smith</p>

[mickey_anderson]

<p>You may want to talk to a representative from your local camera store and inquire about whether or they can loan or rent you a couple of lenses. If so, it might help you make up your mind on which one you prefer without purchasing more than one. I also have a 5100 and have not made the leap to micro just yet, although I did manage to capture the following using the 55-200 kit lens. Surprisingly, I did not have my tripod. It was a "lucky hand-held" capture! </p><div></div>