DSLRUsers.com

Hey guys,

I have a bit of cash at the moment and am looking at buying a macro lens.

from what i have read both the nikkor 60mm and 105mm are great lenses but im not sure if the extra 300 is worth it for the 105mm over the 60mm at the moment seeing as how i also have to buy a larger bag and more cf cards.

i was just looking for some thoughts on these lenses baring in mind that i have no experiance with actual macro photography meaning i have even more hesitation at spending the extra $300 or so.

cheers
Thommo

Some things to consider
- What kind of working distance do you want?
- What will you do with it when not using it as a macro lens?
- Is it a 1:1 macro
- What is the maximum f-stop and how important is f2.8 vs f3.5 or f4?
- new or used?

im not that experianced in the world of macro yet.

Basicly im looking to buy new as i havent seen any second hand yet

Will be a dedicated macro lens at this stage

Not really sure about working distances at the moment

I was under the impression that both the 60mm And 105mm are 1:1 macro lenses

Have you considered the Sigma 180mm f3.5 APO EX DG HSM I am very happy with mine and with the addition of a Canon 500D it is a weapon

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0505/05051 ... mmf3.5.asp


LOZ

I second the recommendation for the Sigma 180mm f3.5

Probably a little over your budget though by the sounds of it. Well worth the money though.

If you're looking at chasing insects around then the extra working distance of the 180mm will DEFINATELY come in handy. (The longer the focal length, the further you can be away from you subject).

I've seen some great pics from the 105 and 60 macros as well. I don't think image quality would be a problem for any of the three.... you just have to work out how much room you want between you and your subject.... oh and there's the money thing too (but when does anyone ever let THAT get in the way of buying new gear )

Paul

have you had a look at the 90mm tamron macro......... my choice would be the 150mm sigma, as this lens suites the way I shoot.......

big pix wrote: my choice would be the 150mm sigma

that would be my choice too (and it was).

Reason i chose the 150 is cos i can still use this as a medium telephoto lens, its roughly the same weight as my 24-70 so im used to the weight.

I find the working distance quite good with the 150mm and for around 800'ish dollars (imported price when i purchased it), you can't go wrong

I too use the 150mm Sigma, constant f2.8.
Am very pleased with the results although I have't done much macro lately.
Too bloody cold in Tasmania at the moment to chase bugs round the garden for hours.
Cheers
John

After trying both Sigma 150mm and Micro Nikkor 105mm, I personally like the Nikon. It's optics appear to be a tad sharper.

And as for choosing between Micro Nikkor 60mm and Micro Nikkor 105mm, I'd say, go for the 105mm if you can. The extra working distance it gives you is worth it.

I put my bucks on a Tamron 90 or Sigma 180.

But, apart from all the very costly solutions mentioned above, here is my cheap alternative method. A 50 f.18 with a BR-2A reversal ring. The ring cost you only $50 and gets you down to lifesize with a DSLR. Many downside from this alternative, no focusing, manual distance focus (move camera), no metering, and manual aperture control. Plus sides on this setup is that you get "two" lens in one. Normal mount and reversed mount. Plug a 28mm and you get an awesome 3:1 reproduction ratio, at price of extreme close focus distance.

Im still living under this rock, and find it quite fun to play around the macro world. I will move into real macro lenses whenever I really feel the need for it, but right now Im okay with the reversing method.

Tamron was the best general purpose choice when I bought mine and I have no regrets.

The digital upgrade seems to have produced another really good general purpose lens.

thanks for the help guys, at this stage i am leaning towards the nikon 105 f2.8 from birdy.

Thommo - I have the 105 2.8 nikon - and it is heaven Or at least, it suits what I do with it - or at least I think it does ?????? LOL
Seriously - a very nice lens
Rel

blacknstormy wrote:Thommo - I have the 105 2.8 nikon - and it is heaven Or at least, it suits what I do with it - or at least I think it does ?????? LOL
Seriously - a very nice lens
Rel

I have decided that i will spend for more the extra quality. So will be picking this up in a few weeks. Right after a mini trekker as my micro trekker now has no space whatsoever and i have a another camera and lens coming next week.