DSLRUsers.com

First of all an explanation. My wife, Alison, is the macro photographer. She has a D300 and uses a Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro lens. The Sigma has recently developed a bit of a fault and won't AutoFocus all of the time (probably only 25% of the time). I've done the usual things, tried it on diferent bodies, cleaned contacts and sent it to Kennedys to get it re-chipped for the D300. The net result is that it focuses fine manually, but intermittently on AF. This behavior is driving her crazy so I've decided to get her a new macro lens. Alison mainly does the real close in 1:1 macro work. Bugs etc. My question is which macro lens to go for. The ones I've been considering are:

AFS Nikkor 60mm f2.8 ED G N: This lens is rated very highly but I suspect it's focal length is too short for the sort of work she does. A number of net writers are rating this the best Nikkor macro lens ever (but with too short a focal length for bugs).

AFS Nikkor 105mm f2.8 ED IF VR G: This doesn't get rated all that highly on image quaility. I'm not sure about use of VR on a macro lens. Alison uses a monopod with a trigger head for her macro, not a tripod, so maybe VR would work well on this setup.

AF Nikkor 200mm f4 ED IF: The more I read about this lens, the more impressed I get. It sounds and looks like it was built along the lines of the classic 80-200 2.8. I think a few forum members have this lens.

Tamron 90mm Di: I don't know much about this, but what I have heard has been good.

I'd be interested in opinions from other macro photographers.

Thanks
John

Hi

I am not a macro photgrapher (yet) but I have been working through the same question for a month or more so hope this helps.

In the end I think I will go for the Tamron 90mm based on the bang for buck arguement. At $373 (Gary must have just updated the prices) it is indeed a bargain.

However, seeing as this is for your wife maybe some nice Nikkor glass may be worth the cost. I agree on your points around the 60mm and 105mm Nikkor. The 105mm VR reviews are a bit dissappointing. Had never looked at the 200mm looks nice from a quick search though.

I just keep coming back to the Tamron on bang for buck.

Good luck though

A friend of mine has the Sigma 180mm and Loves it

It's big and heavy but VERY sharp - great for macro work.

Ok I can certainly help here as I have owned or used all of those lenses.

Nikkor 60mm super sharp and excellent value - but too short.

Sigma 180mm super sharp but slow to focus and a little slow.

Nikkor 105mm (my current lens) is sharp also but is taking quite a while to get used to. For me the VR is very useful.

Tamron 90mm probably the best value for moneu macro lens on the market.

Nikkor 200mm - the pick of the bunch but can be hard to find. I believe that Nikon will release a 2.8 version of this in the not too distant future, which may mean that a few more second hand ones will find there way on to the market.

G'day

Hmmm, disturbing news about the Sigma 150mm f/2.8.

I have the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro and for wildlowers and similar stuff, I really like it. Because a longer focal length is better for bugs, I've been thinking of buying the Sigma 180mm f/3.5

deadgoose wrote:(Gary must have just updated the prices)

Confirmed!

Thanks for all the quick feedback guys.
And thanks for the comparisons Oneputt. That's interesting about the rumoured Nikon 200/2.8.
What is it about the 105 VR lens that's taking some getting used to Oneputt?

I've got a feeling that this is going to be one of those compromise decisions.
The longer lenses sound like the go, but for my wife they may be too heavy.

Cheers
John

i have owned the tamron 90mm

pros:
super light
very sharp
unbelievable bokeh
cons:
short focal length for bugs
rotating front element
click on/off MF mechanism that scares away bugs

i have owned the sigma 150mm
pros:
super sharp
superb contrast and colour
IF and quiet HSM
cons:
its heavy and awkward to handhold

i currently have the 105VR
pros:
sharp...not as sharp as the sigma though
VR - invaluable
IF and quiet AF-S
accurate colour
very fast AF for a macro lens
you can use it in bright conditions with a tc14 to increase your focal length to 150mm and it retains all its features.

cons:
focal length
contrast is average

i have used the 200mm f4
pros:
this is just a mindblowingly beautiful lens. to lisyt all the pro's would be take ages. it is superb.

cons:
only one...its bloody heavy.

Hi,

I just purchased one of these today for my partner KAtie who is the Macro photographer. AFS Nikkor 60mm f2.8 ED G N: Just happend to also aquire a D300 at the same time. I have been playing with the both today and been having a ball. But then again Macro is not my thing. An out of the box experience with both of them has been positive.

Mark

that new 60mm looks like one hell of a lens Hudo. look forward to seeing some images.

John,

I have been using the "older" Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 for over 10 years for all my macro work. I love the lens and for most subjects (frogs, spiders, caterpillars, shield bugs, mantids, etc.) it is fine and I don't find it too short at all. I have even used it with some success on dragonflies and butterflies. (It is also perfect for underwater macro as you want to reduce water between the lens and the subject, but that's off topic for your wife.)

That said, I am planning to buy the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 as I believe it will help me with faster moving insects and also giving me a different angle of view and change the background, DOF, etc. Another benefit of the Sigma 150mm is that it has a tripod collar. I use a monopod most of the time for my macro work and this will allow me to easily switch from landscape to portrait (I don't have an L plate).

If she is happy with the Sigma 150mm, why not just replace it?

John, I have the Nikkor 200 f/4 and as stated above by Rooz it is simply the best. No contest.

Absolutely perfect for the purpose for which your wife would use it.

What is taking getting used to? Well first of all mine seems able to focus closer in manual mode than AF mode. Not much but enough to make a difference, I also have some concerns about the sharpness of this lens. Now that may be just me but................

i agree, especially compared to the 150mm sigma which was tack sharp. funnily enuf, i've also taken a bit of time to get used to it but thats more about the focal length and contrast than the AF.

Oneputt wrote:What is taking getting used to? Well first of all mine seems able to focus closer in manual mode than AF mode. Not much but enough to make a difference, I also have some concerns about the sharpness of this lens. Now that may be just me but................

We had a macro workshop on Saturday and one of the attendees had the 105 VR on a D3. He was not happy with it at all, particularly regarding focusing and sharpness. He only ever uses auto focus due to eyesight issues. He then had a play with the 200 f/4 and came away with a big smile on his face.

Oneputt wrote:What is taking getting used to? Well first of all mine seems able to focus closer in manual mode than AF mode. Not much but enough to make a difference, I also have some concerns about the sharpness of this lens. Now that may be just me but................

how are you going with this ? any tips you want to share if you're starting to get it to come good cos i'm starting to get quite annoyed with it to be honest.

its proving to be an excellent short tele for portraits and still life/ slow moving stuff. but i'm still struggling to get macro results equivalent to the sigma 150mm, especially at MFD. the sharpness at infinity is stunning but when i'm up close i'm losing alot of sharpness imo and the contrast is just crap. this is the total opposite to the sigma which is so far proving to be a VASTLY better macro lens.

i knew i shoulda just bitten the bullet and grabbed the 200/4 micro. that'll teach my dumb ass for trying to save a few dollars.

I just wanted to add something to the list.

Tamron SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD (IF)

I have used this one for a bit, back when I was just starting out with DSLR's, and am trying to get another go with it. BUT I do remember it to be one of the best lenses that I had used at that point in time. I am actually considering diving into getting a macro, but am torn between the 105VR, Tamron 90mm and possibly this one.

Anyone know anything about the Tammy 180?? I do remember that it does have the sliding/clicking AF/MF switch and is much more of a MF lens than an AF lens, AF speed being sacrificed.

i ran the tammie side by side with the sigma 150/2.8 and the sigma was my preferred option. most importantly, the tammie has no focus limit switch, its noisy and AF is slow and innacurate. i personally dont recommend it.

Thanks Rooz, I knew I had to be forgetting the bad points of this lens.

Rooz.... you might be waiting for an answer for a little while as Oneputt is off wandering.

I pondered long and hard on this question myself... in the end I grabbed the Sigma 150 for the extra reach and the f/2.8 which might come in handy for the odd occasion when not used as a macro (of course that also means you loose out at the other aperture end that might be important macrowise). So far I've not had any trouble with it but nor have I been doing much macro !!!

There just does not appear to be a good all rounder in this class of glass... the longer lens can be heavy and, well, long... making lighting and hand holding a challenge... the shorter lens can just get a little uncomfotably close to some subjects !!!

Alison has one key advantage... she's been using the Siggie so ought to have some thoughts on whether the working distance provided by the 150 suited. That might help firm up the decision.

Mj wrote:...in the end I grabbed the Sigma 150 for the extra reach and the f/2.8 which might come in handy for the odd occasion when not used as a macro (of course that also means you loose out at the other aperture end that might be important macrowise)....

The minimum aperture is f/22 which is fine for macro. Going smaller will increase depth of field (which may be of benefit for some subjects) but is also likely to have a negative effect on image quality. For macro, having too much depth of field is not always good as you usually want good background separation.

Also note (although this may not apply to the Sigma 150mm), macro lenses tend to give you 1:1 reproduction ratio (or near enough) at the minimum focusing distance. To achieve the minimum focusing distance the element has to move further away from the focal plane which effectively increases the focal length. (The focal length of a lens is determine at infinity.) Increasing the focal length while keeping the physical aperture the same size results in a "larger" f/stop. My 60mm macro lens has a minimum aperture of f/32, but at minimum focusing distance I actually get f/57.

Thanks for all the feedback on this. The decision has been made. We'll be getting the Nikon 200/f4.
I have just been made redundant after 22 years with my employer.
But I get a nice BIG redundancy cheque in early September.
So we'll be making the purchase shortly after that.

Cheers
John

John, unhappy to hear about a redundancy after 22 yrs

i recently acquired a Tamron 90/2.8 thru Poon and i've been more than happy with it. Then again, its my first macro lens and im beginning to realise its flaws - noisy AF which hunts quite a bit, extending barrel during focussing etc.
However, i think that it would be too short for what your Mrs is used to.. as others have suggested, Sigma 150/2.8 is probably a good choice.

anyways, goodluck with it!

-julian