Lens Question

[mark_starr]

<p>I had a sigma 105mm macro lens for a Nikon that I gave to my daughter and want to replace it but they don't seem to make the same lens anymore (now they have stabilization in them and are much more expensive. I don't use it all that often but when I do it was just what I needed. My question is this: I see other zoom lenses that also list macro on them from various manufacturers and as I need to replace a zoom I broke the front end off anyway, would this be a good way to go or will it be too much of a compromise for both the zoom and the macro? Other info that may be helpful: The macro is used mostly for copy work of existing photos. The zoom I need runs generally from 24 mm to anywhere from 70 to 120 mm. Just wondering which way to go. Thanks for any light any of you might be able to shed on this!<br>

Mark Starr</p>

[SCL]

<p>Mark - a zoom might fit your bill for occasional use, but true macro lenses are generally corrected and optimized for flatness of field. I won't rehash all the virtues of the Nikon macros, as there are lots of threads on them. But if you really liked the lens you had, look on the big auction site and perhaps you can find a gently used one, or check out www.Keh.com. FWIW, although I have 5 macro lenses, my Nikon 105 (AF but not IS) gets more usage than all the rest put together.</p>

[sgust]

<p>I don't think there are any zoom lenses that achieve 1:1 magnification. Many manufactures will throw the macro tag on zoom lenses that can achieve 1:2 magnification, which depending on your subjects may be enough. But if copy work is what your main focus is then you want a real macro for the flat field of focus. Although I've heard you can pick up used copy lenses for very good prices now a days. Might be worth looking into.</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>KEH has a couple of Sigma 105's posted right now priced under $400. I had this lens and found it to be excellent, only sold it to move up to the 150mm macro.</p>

[mark_starr]

<p>Stephen, Siegfried and Don.<br>

Thanks so much for your helpful answers - I think I will stick with a dedicated macro lens. I always have to battle my urge to do things the cheap way... I really appreciate all of you taking the time to help me with this question. Have a great week -<br>

Mark</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

The TAMRON 90mm is also a good cheap Macro lens. The basic design has been around for years and it has always

had a very good reputation (actually bet than the Sigma). You should be able to pick one up for $250 to $300. In terms of

zooms with a Macro mode they never do 1:1 and the only one I have ever used that is very sharp as a Macro lens is the

Leica R 35-70 F4. And this lens used is $1000 (or more)

[mark_starr]

<p>Phillip,<br>

Thanks for that - I really loved that lens and will look for another used one at this point. As you say, price does sometimes make a difference but in this case it wasn't too bad and worked out. A lieca is way out of the question.... Thanks for your thoughts -<br>

Mark</p>