Macro lens for D80?

[dawn_mckinley]

<p>I am new to the forum and already have a question. I currently have a seven-year-old D80 with an AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED lens. I love it the camera and the lens. The combination has served me well on trips and around town, but I find myself wanting to get closer to smaller objects than I am currently able to (flowers, insects). I am thinking about upgrading to a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens. I have read here that that lens can be heavy for the D80, and it is pricey. My question is - is this overkill for a D80? Should I be spending money on a lens like this or putting the money into upgrading the camera itself? </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S is not a macro lens. Rather, it was for indoor parties, weddings, etc. a decade ago when Nikon didn't have FX bodies.</p>

<p>If you are into macro photography, consider Nikon's 85mm DX AF-S macro lens or some third-party options. The D80 body is dated, but as long as you are using low ISO, it is still ok. Of course, there are many ways to upgrade, depending on how much money you would like to spend.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Dawn, I spent years doing macro photography with a D100 (APS-C (DX)) camera and the Nikkor Macro 55mm f2.8 Micro AIS lens. And I was very pleased with the results.</p>

<p>The 17-55 f2.8 is a really nice lens, and if I was doing photojournalism work with an APS-C (DX) camera, it is the lens I would buy. It is heavy, and it is expensive. You need to decide if it will serve your needs.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>New, that lens costs about 10 times what your old D80 is worth, and that seems like a total overspend to me. Unless you're thinking of upgrading the camera body by a similar amount too. But upgrading the camera still won't get you any closer to the subject.</p>

<p>The 17-55 has a maximum magnification of one-fifth size. That's nowhere near true macro. Tim's option of a manual focus 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is a good cheap route that will get you to half lifesize. For small insects you'll need even more magnification than this, and if those are shy insects then you may need a longer lens than 55mm.</p>

<p>My personal favourite macro lens is Tamron's AF 90mm f/2.8. The optical quality is much more than good enough for use on a D80, and its cost is very reasonable. It focuses to 1:1 (lifesize) without need of further attachments. There's a new VC version available, and this might be a consideration if you're not prepared to lug a tripod around with you.</p>

<p>I'm not a great fan of Sigma lenses, but their 70-300mm f/4~5.6 APO zoom is great value and offers good optical quality. Only the APO version with a red band mind. Not the non-APO version, which is average to poor. This lens allows half lifesize magnification and would give you a longer focal length than you already have.</p>

[dawn_mckinley]

<p>Thank you all for your comments and suggestions and for pointing me in the right direction. What a great introduction to the forum!<br>

I think I will stick with the D80 for now and invest in a macro lens that will give me the immediate results I am looking for with respect to closer shots - without having to lug a tripod around.<br>

I do intend to invest in an upgraded camera body in the not-too-distant future and will look to buy a lens with that in mind as well (which is one of the reasons I was looking at the 17-55 lens in the first place). But, I think that for now I should focus on a lens in the 55/60 or 85/90mm f2.8 range.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Dawn</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>If you don't want to spend a lot right now, a Nikon, Micro Nikkor 55 mm f 3.5 (Ai version) can be had for 70-80 dollars at KEH. It's well known/famous for being a sharp lens. I've used one for years on a D70 and D80. It doesn't meter with these cameras, but that's not to big a deal since you can do a test shot easily to get the exposure. You have to get the Ai version to fit on the D80 without damaging it. If you want macro down to 1:1 there is an extension tube Nikon makes for this lens. I've have this tube but have never needed to use it for the close up work I've done. The lens gets really close without it. I still use it on my current D7100 too. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photo/17439075. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Another shot with the 55mm micro Nikkor f 3.5 <br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/4598116</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I have a Nikkor 55mm f3.5. You have to manually focus and guess exposure but that's not a problem for most macro I used to shoot with it. The lens is so fantastic that I kept it when I moved from Nikon to Olympus µ43 this year, and it's a stunner on my new rig as well.</p>

<p>And it's so cheap!</p>

<p>HIGHLY recommend it, unless you're photographing moving critters. If that, I'd go for the Nikkor 85 first, or the Tamron 90 (probably the latter).</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I use and love my 85/3.5 micro Nikkor.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm going to second the 90mm Tamron (cheaper, pre-VC version) suggestion. It covers full frame as well, so you're future proof, and the working distance helps for insects and sometimes flowers - though the front element is heavily recessed, so you don't get quite the working distance you might expect. I would point out that with a manual lens on a D80, you won't get metering (there's no aperture feeler), which is potentially inconvenient. That's not a problem with the Tamron (or similar options), even if you decide to manual focus with it. And I suspect any of these will be bitingly sharp compared with something like an 18-200. The Tamron also doubles as a decent portrait lens, at f/2.8 - though it does have a tiny amount of LoCA wide open (but so does the 105mm Nikkor).<br />

<br />

If you're really cash strapped, I'd look at a close-up filter/diopter. I'm not sure the 18-200 is the ideal starting point for that, but every little helps. Being a G lens, I guess it's not worth investigating extension tubes with the 18-200.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It is really difficult to pick a bad macro lens: there isn't a single really bad one available today as far as I can tell.<br>

The first choice is for focal length - both for how close you need to get (shorter focal length typically means you need to get closer), as well as the angle of view (for flowers, a wider angle can be nice to get a bit more environment into the photo, for insect you usually want a bit longer to isolate the subject). For example, for living insects, I wouldn't want a 60mm macro - just too short with too short working distance. For flowers, something like 90mm might be too long , and instead a 40mm DX macro could make a better choice. It's hard for any of us to answer this question for you.<br>

I'd start by using you 18-200 lens to get an idea of which focal length would suit you best - 40mm, 60mm, around 90mm ? Once you know that, it becomes a bit easier to shop for a specific lens.</p>

[Sycamoe]

<p>I love my 100 mm Tokina macro. One thing about them is their solid build quality and it wasn't a fortune. It's easy to push/pull from auto to manual focus, which is something you will learn that you will have to do often in macro work. I would agree that anything that is a true macro lens will serve you well--Sigma, Tamron, Nikon or Tokina. Once you have an actual dedicated macro lens and see how superior it is, you won't know how you ever did without it.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>The Micro Nikkor 55mm, I believe in all versions, goes down to 1:2 for full frame (FX). That would be about 3:4 for DX cameras, viewing the image the same way. (Specifically, if your object is 24mm by 36mm, it fills up way more of the frame than it would on FX.)<br>

There is an extension tube designed to go to 1:1 full frame.<br>

I used one on my D70s with a much shorter extension to match 35mm slides. <br>

The Micro Nikkor lenses are designed to be used with extensions (tubes or bellows).</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"...goes down to 1:2 for full frame (FX). That would be about 3:4 for DX cameras,..." - Glen the magnification ratio stays the same, regardless of which format the lens is fitted to. Half lifesize is always half lifesize; meaning that the image in the camera is half the size of the subject.</p>

<p>Sure, on a DX camera the frame will be filled more completely, but the magnification ratio isn't multiplied. Same as the focal length of a lens stays the same whether you fit it to a DX or FF camera. 1:2 on DX means that a subject area of (approximately) 48 by 32mm will be covered, while on full frame the area covered will be 72 by 48mm - i.e. twice the area of whatever format size is used.</p>

[dawn_mckinley]

<p>Thanks again for all your comments. I ended up renting a 60mm f/2.8G Nikon lens and a Nikon 105mm f/2.8G lens to play with. I also compared to my 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G. Even though the AF worked on all three lenses with my D80, I manually focused and took the same flower shot as close as I could get and still be able to focus. The 105mm f/2.8 was, I think the hands-down winner. It was fun to shoot with and the colors were more vibrant in the same lighting. The only question I have is whether or not the 85mm f/1.4 would be better for my purposes. It was out of stock at the rental store, but I think I may go back and shoot with that before I decide on what to buy.<br>

Dawn</p>

<div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly (sorry Dawn!) - I can certainly imagine the 105mm as being most helpful of those you tried. The 60mm will give you some more of the background (a wider field of view), which arguably helps more with flowers than with most other things, but that's countered by the advantages of working distance that you get with a longer lens, which gives you more chance to get light to your subject.<br />

<br />

The 105mm is very good (and doubles as an okay portrait lens). It's also quite big and expensive - I would give serious consideration to the 90mm Tamron VC (or even the older version if you want to save more money), the 105mm Sigma or the 100mm Tokina, all of which are optically very good, and all of which are much cheaper than the 105mm micro-Nikkor. The Nikkor is almost as expensive as the Sigma 150mm macro lens, which I can vouch is extremely good and gives you even more working distance (and I think has less LoCA than the micro-Nikkor).<br />

<br />

The 85mm f/1.4 (I assume you're talking about the current AF-S version) is a completely different lens. It's much more expensive than any of these, and doesn't get all that close (minimum focus distance is 90cm, for a 1:8.3 reduction - you'll fill a frame with about 20cm on the long axis). You can get closer with extension tubes or a diopter, of course. It's a lovely portrait lens, although it also has bad colour fringing which has put me off wanting one - and that's probably not a good feature for macro shots. The 85mm f/1.8 AF-S is extremely good and much cheaper, if you aren't sure you need f/1.4. Unless what you really wanted was a portrait lens that you can adapt into macro use, I don't think either 85mm is something that you should consider, at least for flowers and insects. Aperture doesn't much matter at macro range - even f/2.8 gives you a tiny plane of focus, and you'll often be stopping down (and maybe focus stacking) a lot anyway if you want detail.</p>

[cano_maga_a]

<p> Well Down, first of all I liked your pic of the flower, and I have two questions, First of all, what are you photographing the most, just insects and flowers ? I hear ppl telling you the 50 or the 60 mm is too short, without even knowing you're up for little creatures or coins or what ?--- The second will be if you really need the 2.8 lens ? Because it costs a lot ! In case you're seriously getting into macro, and have money ok; in case you're not, I'd recommend other more versatile and cheap lens (you decide the focal) so you can even save money for a camera body upgrade later. <br>

I may sound totally unconventional, but try an older <strong>Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D</strong> lt can focus nicely, it's very cheap, has great sharpness and can get to 1:2 when you need it. I know it's not a "real" macro, but you're not photographing flat subjects are you ? The convinience of that lens is that it is a very good lens that can do it all. Just try it, it may work for you.</p>

<p> Cano<br>

</p>

[dawn_mckinley]

<p>Thanks to everyone for their insights. I have learned a lot reading your responses. After much consideration, I got a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 lens. I think it will suit my needs of macro photography as well as giving me a "bonus" half-way decent portrait lens. I was highly swayed in my decision by having the opportunity to test out the lens before buying. I just had fun shooting with it and loved the results. I am also looking forward to trying out its portrait capabilities on my extended family this holiday season!<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Dawn</p>