Best all around "affordable" FX Macro

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Went out with the Tokina 28-70, Nikon adapter on the GXR A 12 and took a few shots earlier 105 equivalent. The dark Peony is apparently a Chocolate Soldier, and not too common. Have been burning up the internet pricing several of your suggestions. Many affordable choices. Possibly one of the longer ones, since I do have the old AI 55 and the Tokina. That would let me shoot some of the Bees, Wasps, Spiders and non venomous reptiles. The venomous ones we handle "administratively". Greatly appreciate all of the advice! S</p>

[joseph_smith3]

Regarding ext tubes, if you use Nikon made tubes, you will not get vignetting. If you use third party tubes with full

electronic contacts, you may get vignetting as these tubes are narrower than Nikon ones. The degree of vignetting also

may depend on the Nikon lens used and its diameter.

 

Joe

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Joseph, thanks!</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Kent - I thought the general advice was that VR was less useful for macro because translational movement of the camera starts to dominate rotational movement, and only a few lenses (Canon's 100mm macro, the newest version of the Tamron 90mm macro - any others?) have a stabilisation system that can compensate for that? Certainly I've been grateful of the 150mm OS's stabilisation at longer range and moderately small subjects, but not so much for true macro. Although insects and flowers tend to move on their own, which can be as much of a problem. Maybe my perceptions are wrong - I don't do that much true macro (or I'd have got around to getting some focus stacking software).</p>

[nick_baker]

<p>Andrew<br>

You are correct that conventional VR becomes less effective at closer focusing distances. Most people use macro lenses at a variety of distances not only at 1:1 magnification. VR retains a degree of usefulness at the many distances between 1:1 and the minimum focus of your normal lenses, for which only your macro lens can be used. As a practical matter, VR in a lens such as the 105VR is quite helpful in a variety of close-up situations. I suppose that's why Nikon made it. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Nick - I doubted my sanity there for a second! And agreed, VR is useful, but we're pushing the definition of "affordable" there. :-) (Unless "not affordable" in a macro means an APO-Lanthar 125mm at inflated prices, or a 60mm Coastal Optics.)</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Affordable, in my current situation is equal to the balance in my photo fund which is right around $500 max, with a bit more coming later in the month. A lot of the suggested lenses are close to that in price used on line. I am leaning toward a longer FL, though this morning I am going to give the Tokina a Garden test on my DF.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm curious why no-one has suggested using the 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor that Sandy already has. It will work perfectly well on a full-frame DSLR, albeit with a rather short subject distance - plus needing a PK13 tube or similar to reach 1:1. But it'll certainly be better than any so-called "macro" zoom like the Tokina 28-70mm.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have both a 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor and a Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro. Both focus to 1:1 and there's almost nothing to choose between them in terms of image quality. The old Tamron 90mm f/2.5 lens is noticeably inferior at macro distances and also only focuses to half-lifesize.</p>

<p>Tokina's 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens gets good reviews, but I have no personal experence with it.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Rodeo Joe, good point! Because of the GXR, I had "modern" lens stuck in my head. I will break that out & give it a try as well -- I have a variety of Nikon Tubes. I think the issue will be working distance & knees! Thanks for a useful suggestion! S</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Oh - I'd thought Sandy wanted to supplement the 55mm! Yes, if that lens will work for you, there's nothing wrong with it - people still suggest it as a cheap macro option. Depending on the subject, going longer certainly has merits, but there's a lot to be said for trying what you have before going elsewhere! This is usually a very good forum for <i>not</i> telling people to spend more money. (Says someone about to pick up two new lenses...)</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Andrew -- I am simply exploring options. I got the GXR and Macro module, and that sparked an interest in a modern, possibly longer macro lens. I do have the 55 / 3.5, and the Tokina that I had forgot. I shot a series at the Desert Museum in Phoenix a while back with regular Nikon zooms, and that along with recent (experiment) garden shots got me thinking. Still thinking and looking! Thanks, S</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Believe I have found a clean inexpensive Nikkor 105 / 2.8D -- I'll start there. If macro really engages me long term, and I need it, I'll look for a longer FL somewhere down the road. Many thanks to all!</p>

[robert_parnell]

<p>The Sigma 150 f2.8 OS macro. F2.8 bright in viewfinder (you can only photograph what you can see), exquisitely sharp, up to date lens technology for digital cameras, and has a tripod collar for verticals. Nuf said.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Robert, Thanks! Over all the decades, whenever I have strayed from Nikon, I have sold what I settled for and returned when I could afford to. I am sure this is a fine lens, heard a lot of good things about Sigma. I will take another look at it when I move up in FL. Appreciate your feedback. Sandy</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Over all the decades, whenever I have strayed from Nikon, I have sold what I settled for and returned when I could afford to. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>there are almost no "bad" macro lenses. for decades, the tamron 90 carved out a stellar reputation which is matched by the tokina 100 and all the nikon 105 versions. these days, nikon's build quality isnt what it used to be, and some of the contemporary 3rd party variants are actually better in IQ. that said, some of the older AF-D Nikons are pretty good -- the 28-105 has a trick 1:2 macro mode which makes it pretty versatile. in a perfect world, it would be updated with VR for handheld closeup use!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Eric -- no question that all of the major brands produce excellent lenses, and obviously what I don't know about macros and macro technique would fill a book. The little Tokina Macro Zoom produced fine results. But I am comfortable with Nikon, the lens from Japan was inexpensive, and seems virtually new. All of the used equipment I have bought from Japan has been excellent. As / if I move to a longer FL, everything will be on the table, and the info in this thread will be the place I start. Thanks for contributing. Sandy</p>

[Albins images]

<p><em>Mmmm... lovely!</em> A long thread on old and new Nikon micro lenses! :-)<br /><br />Which one? The Obvious answer is: collect them all!<br />The sensible answer is the question that was asked above.<br />.. What is wrong with the 55/3.5?<br /><br />I have that one for years and it is fine. Then I added the AIS 105/2.8.. for use on small mammals. Then I did all my micro-work with 24/2.8 (on extension rings .. sometimes reversed) .. Then I added a classic 60/2.8 AF, for AF convenience.<br /><br />If you cannot take good insect images with a 55-60mm, a longer lense is not going to be a great advantage. Is my personal opinion from my experience.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since the OP already has a 55mm macro lens, going to something like 105mm (or 90mm) is the next logical step. A longer macro lens gives you more working distance, which makes it easier to light the subject, and you won't disturb the subject as much.</p>

<p>Going to a 150mm or 200mm macro could be even better, especially a tripod collar could be very helpful, but the cost will be higher and it becomes a bit more specialized.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Albin -- each of the shorter lenses does a fine job. Distance is the key to the longer ones for me, both to give space for potentially unpleasant insects and reptiles, and to spare my sport and life battered knees. Though I can when necessary, crawling around on the ground is uncomfortable!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Shun, Thanks! My rationale exactly, as you can see. I am sure that eventually, I will get around to a 180 or 200. Just exploring this facet of photography, which I have long ignored, has been both refreshing and enjoyable. Heaven knows we have myriad insects and wildflowers out here!</p>

[Albins images]

<p>Sandy, I do realise that keeping a distance by using a longer lense can have it's advantages. Such as not-disturbing the subject, and different background (un)sharpness. <br /><br />Maybe the 'next logial step' <em>is</em> in fact 180-200, in stead of somewhere inbetween!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Albin -- too late! As is my custom, I gathered info, made a decision, and moved. The AF 105 /2.8 D is on the way from Japan. The lens was just slightly over $300 with shipping, and seems minty. We will see after I have used it for a while. The Yucca and various other wildflowers are just starting to bloom. Thanks for your input!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It is not too late. I have 60mm, 105mm, and 200mm macro lenses. Nothing prevents Sandy from doing the same. :-)</p>

[Albins images]

It's not too late anyway! Like I said: "collect them all!"

Enjoy the 105.