Suggestions for good macro lens

[rebecca_mellman]

<p>I am new to macro photography and am really enjoying it. However, I do not have a lot of money to dump into equipment at the moment. I want to take detailed macro photos extremely close up (forgive me if I'm not using the appropriate terms, as I mentioned, I am new to this). For example, I want to be able to photgraph the details of an object (ie the point of a ball point pen or images in a water droplet). Can anyone suggest a good lens for this type of photography? I'm looking to spend under $500 (the more under the better :-) ) I have a Nikon D3100.<br>

thanks so much!</p>

 

[Bill J Boyd]

<p><strong>Rebecca,</strong><br>

I use a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro lens on my Nikon D7100 and very pleased with it. Cost is $395 at B&H Cameras. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Extension tubes are very, very affordable (well under $50) and will possibly work well with a lens that you may already own. What lenses do you currently use?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>the point of a ball point pen or images in a water droplet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is fairly extreme macro. Unfortunately, that means you want a longer macro lens, e.g. 100mm or longer and those tend to cost more. Nikon makes a 40mm/f2.8 DX macro that is very affordable and excellent, but that seems to be way too short for your needs: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/</p>

<p>For the D3100, I don't think extension tube is a good approach. Instead, I would look for a third-party 90mm or 100mm macro like what Bill suggested, but make sure that it can meter with the D3100 and you may want to have AF with it also.</p>

[peteraitch]

<p>I use the Tamron 90mm macro which I've had over 10 years now. This lens has been around, in various iterations, for many years and is generally very highly regarded. My version, the 172E, or the following version (272E) would not be ideal for your camera as they will not autofocus on the D3100. The next model up, the 272EN II, would be ideal and according to Google is still readily available in the US from B&H for $499 or the low 400s from Amazon. Since there is now an even newer VR version on sale, the 272EN II is also available secondhand - but use a trusted source, with a clear returns policy.</p>

<p>Although you do not <em>need</em> AF for macro, it <em>is</em> useful on this lens for conventional use. I use mine as much, or more, as a standard 90mm (on FX, admittedly) as I do for macro stuff. Incidentally, ultra-macro of the kind you have mentioned is really quite tricky and has quite a learning curve. I've never really done it: the depth-of-field and illumination issues put me off! Good luck - it sounds quite exciting, doesn't it?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the tokina 100 macro is a very good lens, nicknamed the "bokina" for its stellar bokeh, and quite reasonable for the price. on a d3100 it will be the equivalent of a 150mm lens on full frame. however, it will not AF on your camera, although MF works quite well. so the suggestion of an AF-S equivalent lens such as the motorized Tamron 90 is a good one, if you want to AF with it and/or use it as a portrait lens.. the inexpensive Nikon 40mm is probably too short for your needs, and there is a DX 85mm VR micro-nikkor, but it doesnt have a good optical reputation.</p>

<p>getting a lens which can go to 1:1 is only part of the equation, however. you will need to stabilize the camera/lens with a tripod and have adequate lighting as well. what you want to do isn't really the kind of stuff that can be done handheld, and may require a lot of fussing around with set-ups to get it right. good luck!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I too have the older 90mm Tamron, and the image stabilization is less important, since you'll likely be using a tripod anyhow. For a long time, it's been one of the bargains out there in the macro range.</p>

[rebecca_mellman]

<p>Thanks, everyone! <br>

I know it's going to be a challenge for a beginner, but it really intrigues me. I already have a couple tri-pods and am looking forward to the challenge. Thanks for all the suggestions. <br>

I have tried an extension tube met with failure. </p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Rebecca, I think you're setting your goals too high for the moment. Most macro lenses go to a magnification of 1:1, meaning that the image on the sensor will be the same size as your subject (on full frame, on your camera you even get a 1.5 magnification). The point of a pen or a waterdrop are very small, this requires special techniques and experience. IMO it's best to start with a 100 mm macro lens, learn the technology and practice macro photography. The droplet and the pen will come later. Macro lenses are not extremely difficult to build, most of them are good so it won't be difficult to find one that fits your budget and gives excellent results. Later you can always add extension tubes to get more magnification.<br>

BTW, Canon makes a macro lens that goes to 5 times magnification but I'm afraid it's out of your budget and it doesn't fit your camera. Fortunately there are more ways to get some extra magnification but safe that for later.<br>

Success and good luck with macro photography.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>@Shun: no longer lens is needed but more magnification. Probably the same lens but with extra's: bellows, reverse mounted, etc. Certainly not standard. Not extremely costly but requires time and practice.<br>

@Rebecca: was the failure due to the extension tube ? It must be possible to shoot a decent picture with tubes although admittedly a real macro lens performs better.</p>

[peter_petrov1]

<p>There are two quite cheap options for macro photography:</p>

<ul>

<li>Reverse-mounting the lens. Looking at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Reversing-Rings/ci/3065/N/4077634538">reverse rings</a>, prices range from $15 to $40.</li>

<li>Mounting another lens in reverse position in front of your lens (face to face). The lenses are connected via simple coupler that usually costs few dollars. I think the rule is that the lens in front must be wider than the one attached to the camera, like in this example: [camera]=[50mm lens]=[28mm lens]. You could take a cheap wide angle lens.</li>

</ul>

<p>It is true that these options are not that convenient compared to dedicated macro lens. On the other hand they are much cheaper, and would allow you to buy something even more important, flash equipment for macro shots.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>@Shun: no longer lens is needed but more magnification. Probably the same lens but with extra's: bellows, reverse mounted, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please take a look at the follow up discussion in my 40mm macro lens review: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/</p>

<p>See the two pictures I posted. In order to use the 40mm macro to achieve 1:1, the front of the lens has to be very close to the subject, leaving very little working distance. As a result, your camera and lens set up will block a lot of the light on the subject. A 100mm lens works much better, and I also have a 200mm macro lens that is even better.</p>

<p>The type of extreme close up the OP is talking about, e.g. the tip of a ball-point pen, etc. is very difficult to shoot, especially if you want good results. For a beginner, I would suggest something less extreme such as flowers. Our member Roberta Davidson has done a lot of water droplet work; that seems to be less extreme also: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=955487</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>Regarding the request for "extremely close up" images, just for reference purposes, here is a penny photographed with a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro locked to its closest focus stop, uncropped on a D7100...<br>

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://richardbarron.net/test/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/coins-close-limit-tokina01a.jpg" alt="" width="648" height="432" /><br>

<br>

</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I would suggest the Nikkor AF-S 2.8 G ED. It is a wonderful lens at what I think is a reasonable price that also functions as a excellent portrait lens.</p>

[2Oceans]

Rebecca, it's hard to make a bad macro lens Most of the third party lenses are very very good. You can find a used Sigma 105 that will

auto focus on your D3100 at KEH for under $300 that will meet your needs but you will need to get closer to shoot what your talking

about. You can purchase a manual Nikon 50mm lens and reversing ring for about $60 to go on the front of your macro that will get you

real close. I like to read on subjects. The first two references are classic. Bryan Peterson is fairly prolific, and current.

 

Manual of Close-up Photography

by Lester Lefkowitz

John Shaw's Closeups in Nature

by John Shaw

Understanding Close-Up Photography: Creative Close Encounters with Or Without a Macro Lens [Paperback]

by Bryan Peterson

 

Good hunting

[ellis_vener_photography]

You might try finding a manual focus, 28, 35, or 50mm lens and mounting it in reversed position (i.e., with front of the two

lenses facing each other ) to your existing lens. Depending on the filter size of the two lenses you might need a simple

male to male threaded filter ring like one of these http://www.2filter.com/prices/products/macroring.html or you might also

need a step-down ring for your primary lens and then the male-to-male ring.

[elliot1]

<p>There are numerous inexpensive ways to get great macro photos. And they all seem to be underrated.</p>

<p>The sample comparison test shots below are unprocessed, full frame RAW image from my D3.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[elliot1]

<p>This shot was done with the lowly 35mm f2 lens and extension tubes. These combination gets you very, very close with good IQ. </p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Owen - I think you missed an important part of the lens specification...<br />

<br />

Just chiming in with another vote in favour of the motorized (older) Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It's done me proud, and doubles as a slightly slow portrait lens. The front element is deeply recessed, which has an annoying effect on the working distance, the ergonomics are a bit iffy, and the LoCA is a bit worse than the Tokina - but the combination of price, range and performance is hard to beat, at least if you want the convenience of a macro lens rather than adaptors. I ended up using one on holiday with my D800, because my zoom lens wasn't doing the sensor justice. The 85mm micro-Nikkor has VR in its favour, but it's a bit slower and I've vaguely heard that the optics aren't quite what you'd hope for (but please find your own reviews and don't take my word for it).<br />

<br />

But if getting closer matters more than convenience, tubes/bellows and diopters have it. Good luck.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>For the money there is always the manual focus 105/4 or preferably the 105/2.8 Nikkor. Available all day from KEH and the 2.8 is one of my favorite lenses.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[blumesan]

<blockquote>

<p>Jos wrote:<br>

Most macro lenses go to a magnification of 1:1, meaning that the image on the sensor will be the same size as your subject (on full frame, <em><strong>on your camera you even get a 1.5 magnification</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Surely that can't be so. The ratio of the size of the image on the sensor to the size of the object itself does not depend on the size of the sensor. Otherwise micro-photography would be best performed on the smallest sensors available.</p>

<p> </p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>I have a D700 and D300. Macro lenses: the Tokina 100mm ATX Pro, a first class lens. Likewise the 60mm Nikon. I also have an older Tamron 90. Another very good performer.</p>

<p>Years ago, when funds were more difficult, I used the 50mm f2 Nikkor and a 135mm Tamron on bellows with considerable success. However, I also used them with a Panagor macro converter. That was capable of truly quality images, although not all users seem to have been happy with the converter. They are now a little difficult to find, but a search will tell you all about.</p>

<p>Macro can get addictive!</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Because of the interesting optical properties going on with macro shooting, it's a lot more common to move the camera back and for rather than actually rotate the lens barrel for critical focus once the ball-park range has been reached. It's easier to actually see the focus pop in and out.</p>

<p>Luckily the subjects you've mentioned so far don't move which gives you the luxury of a good solid support to use such things as a focusing rail, it is your best friend...:-)</p>

<p>WRT focal length for going beyond 1:1, the easiest (and cheapest) is extension tubes on a shortish macro. Tubes come in groups of 3 totalling 68mm, so added to the 60mm macro get you better than 2:1.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>EDIT. Just in case of any misunderstanding, it's metric graph-paper marked in millimeters...:-)</p>

[sem_svizec]

<blockquote>

<p>@Shun: no longer lens is needed but more magnification. Probably the same lens but with extra's: bellows, reverse mounted, etc.<br>

Please take a look at the follow up discussion in my 40mm macro lens review: <a href="/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, Jos is spot on, if we're discussing tips of ball-point pens and water droplets. A longer FL does seem to leave more working distance, but you also need more extension if you want to reach high magnifications 5:1 or so. While 2:1 is surely manageable by an 1:1 macro, indeed preferably not the shortest one, with some extension. <br>

The most convenient option for such higher magnifications is probably Canon's MPE65. On Nikon, a reversed wide-angle lens (preferably one known to be sharp up close, like the AI-s 20/3.5), possibly on some extension tubes, seem to be most convenient (there are more options using bellows; a pre-AI 60mm micro reversed should work fine and not cost much). A wide-angle reversed on top of a tele lens is also possible, but I think it is a bit trickier to set up right. </p>