DSLRUsers.com

Hi All,

After some opinions/advice. I have a D300 & the only lenses I have are AFNikkor 70-300 & 18-70, both of which I got with my D70, lol in the stoneage.

I am only a pleasure photographer, take lots of pics of the horses I breed, & the beautiful Yarra Valley where I live.

I was thinking of the AF-S 60mm Micro f/2.8G ED, but one of the lens review sites I read on here said that the AF is a bit dodgy with the D300.

So now I am thinking either the micro 85mm or 105mm. But of course these are more $$$$$

Thanks in Advance for your thoughts.

Cheers
Amanda.

Hi Amanda.

Have you considered the Tamron 90? it's a very good lens too.

The 60 is great, btw, and I've not heard of any focus issues per se. I have a very old 55mm, and it's just magic.

You might also look around for an older 105. These can be found for not a lot of money, but represent great value.

One thing that perhaps needs to be remembered is that AF + macro shooting is not a good equation. If you're shooting macro, then manual focus is a way better way to go.

That's more a matter of technique than a hardware issue, and (not) surprisingly, most of the issues that I hear about with people commenting on such issues can usually be boiled down to their improper technique, rather than a failing in the equipment.

Hi Amanda,
I have the nikon 105, older no vr version. It is a great lense for macro. It will also allow you to be further away from your intended subject than the 55 or 60mm. I have only heard good things about the Tamron 90mm but have never actually tried it out.
What are you looking to take macros of?

Hi Amanda,
For what its worth.
I use the Tamron 90mm Macro 2.8 on a D300 and can't speak highly enough of it, but can't qualify those comments against other Macro lenses.
I photograph roll ends to count the number of layers of printing material left on rolls for stock control.
Regards,
Rob W

What subjects are you planning to shoot? This will influence the focal length you should go for. If you want to shoot flying insects and the like you might be better off with a 105mm lens. If more stationary subjects, a 60mm will do fine.

I have the older D 60mm and it is by far my favourite lens. The images are so sharp and it is a dream to use. Most of my macro work is done with flash and getting closer to the subject makes using the flash easier - especially when using soft boxes. I don't have any AF issues with my D300. That said, I almost never use AF for terrestrial macro shots (only underwater where manual focus is somewhat of a challenge.

There is a plethora of choices.... my thoughts on the lenses I have sampled

-AF-D 60mm - sharp, AF works (MF is very nice)
-AF-S 60mm - fast AF (no probs when I used it on my D300), very sharp, but very small working distance
-Tamron SP 90mm - inexpensive, VERY SHARP, nice MF and decent AF, doubles nicely as a portrait lens
-AF-S 105 VR - expensive, sharp but heavy, doubles nicely as a portrait lens (VR is nice for this)
-Sigma 180mm - big, heavy, expensive, sharp if you have a good copy, nice working distance for bugs
-Tamron SP 180mm - big, heavy, expensive, very sharp, good AF and nice MF feel

I own a AF-D 60mm and a Sigma 180 (interested in buying it off me?? mine is a sharp copy)

Thank you all for the quick replies.

As I said, strictly amateur here, just taking photos because I enjoy it.
I will be mainly taking nature pics.

I am happy to look at Tamron, doesn't have to be Nikon.

Hmm, with the exception of that one review, which I can't find now, everyone seems to give the 60mm the thumbs up.
Happy to use manual focus if I have to.

Thanks again for all input, much appreciated.

Cheers
Amanda

Does anyone know whether there is a practically significant DOF difference between the 60 and the 105?

I would think depth of field has to be greater on a wider angle lens but in practice it probably makes little difference because depth of field is a major constraint with all macro images - unless you get into focus stacking (combining images with different points of focus).

In general longer is better for general use macro lenses, otherwise you may have to get very close to the subject and your own shadow may become a problem. So, I would suggest the 90mm Tamron or the 105mm Nikon and in either case even the earliest versions are fine (provided the lens is in good condition).

Another very cheap alternative is extension tubes. You can pick up very cheap manual ones on EBay. You can then use them with your existing lenses. Quality won't be as good as with a dedicated lens but should be acceptable, especially to explore what you can get. Focusing racks can be useful too to obtain accurate focus. You can get them quite cheaply on EBay too but they can be fragile so keep the camera strap around your neck just in case. Of course with cheap extension tubes and focusing racks you will find in due course that you either don't use them or you want something better. Focusing racks imply using a tripod and a solid dependable tripod is not that cheap either.

A very cheap option would be the extension tubes as Murray suggests. However these may not work all that well with zoom lenses. They do work, but strange things can happen when you change the zoom or focus. I haven't tried them out on your particular zooms though.

One option might be to get the Nikon 50mm f1.8. This focuses down to about 450mm. and is an excellent lens in its own right. Then add the Kenko tubes and you will be in serious macro territory. This will set you back just about AUD500 if you buy everything new, and you will have an excellent street lens as well as a macro.
It is a cheaper option than even the 60mm micro

surenj wrote:Does anyone know whether there is a practically significant DOF difference between the 60 and the 105?

There is actually no difference in depth of field as it is based on magnification and aperture. If the magnification is 1:1 and f/stop f/11, the DOF will be the same if you are using a 60mm lens, a 105mm lens or even a 200mm lens.

What can change, however, is the apparent sharpness of the background. As a longer lens has a narrower field of view, the area of the background is covered is smaller and this means the effective magnification of the background is higher which results in it looking less sharp.

I have the Tamron 90mm and it is brilliant (esp for the price). I've also extensively used the Nikon 105mm (the new one) and whilst it is a great lens (and AF-S was nice for portrait use) I don't think it was any better optically than the Tamron at less than a third of the price and it is very big and heavy.

You should be able to get the Tamron online delivered for about AUD$375.

Murray Foote wrote:In general longer is better for general use macro lenses, otherwise you may have to get very close to the subject and your own shadow may become a problem.

Why you can shoot macro using available light, the results aren't going to be great, especially if you are shooting animals. For macro, you generally want a small aperture to give sufficient depth of field, this means you either have to go with a slow shutter speed or high ISO, neither of which is good. Shooting in full Sun may help, but then the lighting is going to be harsh.

If you are shooting nature macro, a flash is the best form of lighting and then with a soft box to soften the light. With flash and with soft boxes, the closer the light source, the better the results: a) the light source becomes larger and so the light is softer; b) there is less loss of light so you have more flexibility on aperture.

thorwood wrote:
I will be mainly taking nature pics.

Amanda, that statement can cover quite a bit of territory and might have a bearing on best choice of solution for you.
Static objects vs moving objects (e.g. a leaf vs a bug), location (e.g. in the bush vs in the backyard vs inside in a workroom) all might influence what lens/options/accessories would give best bang for buck.

For myself I use three options all for different purposes (and not very often as it's not what I focus on):

1. Close up dioptor ... this is a quite a good cheap option to throw over an existing lens to get some modest macro (say your 70-300).

2. extension rings ... again quick, cheap and good to use with something like a 50/1.8 which is also worth while getting anyway for other use.

3. macro lens ... I use a sigma 150/2.8 which is a nice sharp lens and gives some handy distance from myself and any subject that might object to having a camera stuck in its face (e.g. funnel web spider). AF on pretty much all macro lens are slooow and this lens is no different. Plenty of folk here will vouche for the tamron 90 and the nikon 105... both nice and lighter than mine but with a much closer working distance.

Oh and if you haven't got a flash... now will be the time for than as macro needs LOTS of light and as much DOF as you can get (i.e. your working at > f/22).

cheers,

Michael

Hmm, have been doing a bit of a google for prices on those lenses mentioned here.
The 105 ranges from around $900-1200 here in Oz & a bit cheaper from HK. Don't mind spending that really, but, unless it is 2 or 3 times as good as the Tamron, not sure if is worth it.

Sounds like the Tamron 90 will be worth a go for the price.

Thanks again for all the info/advice.
Will let you all know what I buy.

Cheers
Amanda