Nikon macro lens recommendations

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Troy Piggins, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    I have a friend who wants to purchase a macro lens. I don't
    think he's new to macro photography, but /is/ new to macro. He
    asked me for recommendations on some lenses but I only have
    experience with Canons. (Please don't make this into a Nikon vs
    Canon thing, I just need some advice to pass on)

    At first he asked me about tubes and teleconvertors. So I
    suggested TCs are no good for macro unless you are magnifying an
    existing macro setup, you lose image quality etc. I also
    suggested that he forget about tubes at this stage, try getting
    used to bare macro lens. I did mention that I have read an
    acceptable and cheap macro setup is to use a 50mm lens with a
    full set of Kenko tubes, although working distance is quite
    small.

    The lenses he was asking about were:
    Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
    AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D

    I have bought and used briefly the Sigma 105mm macro and really
    liked it. And it seems to be cheaper than both of those
    he asked about, and it comes on a Nikon mount.

    So I was going to suggest to him the Sigma 105mm macro, and
    forget the TC and tubes for now.

    Budget-wise, I am not sure. He tends to buy toys expensive, but
    I'd rather recommend something that does the job fine and is good
    value for money.

    Anything to add? Better suggestions? Pros? Cons?
     
    Troy Piggins, Jan 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It depends on what he wants to photograph. If he's making document type
    copies on a stand he's be better suited to get a 60mm f/2.8D AF. It's also
    good for portrait on APS-C, but is a bit too sharp. For insects it has a
    lot less working distance than the 105.

    If he doesn't want to spend that much money, about $400 USD he can get a
    105mm f/2.8D AF. It's a really nice lens and has a nice working distance
    for insect. It's slightly slower in AF than the newer 105/2.8VR. But who
    uses AF with macro work?

    Than you have the latest 105/2.8VR. It's also a nice lens. AF is slightly
    faster than the older version and the optical and image quality are about
    the same as the older version. The bokeh is slightly better on the VR
    version. It's also a bit more expensive than the AF-D version. Again, if
    he's only using the lens for macro he might want the older one. I keep AF
    and VR off for macro work. It's a great portrait lens with sweet bokeh, but
    it can be overly sharp for portrait work. It does work great optically with
    a 2X TC, but AF is a bit slower and hunts more.

    I haven't tried Sigma, but a lot of people love their 105. If he's not in
    that much of a hurry he should be able to get a good deal on eBay. He won't
    go wrong with any of the Nikkors, my favorites are the 105s.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Troy Piggins

    Troy Piggins Guest

    ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.]
    * Rita Berkowitz is quoted & my replies are inline below :
    He won't be making commercial type stuff, and don't think he has
    a tripod. Think he's interested in insects etc after he saw a
    couple of mine.
    Exactly. The AF on my Canon 100mm is slow, but doesn't matter
    with MF.

    I'll look into that lens above. But if it's older, will it be
    second-hand only?
    Ok, thanks for your input.
     
    Troy Piggins, Jan 16, 2008
    #3
  4. Troy Piggins

    Sosumi Guest

    Long time no see!
    Have you been studying the D3 manual? Where are the pics?
     
    Sosumi, Jan 16, 2008
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.