Comments on this macro/general purpose lens

[Hyena]

Hey guys, I'm looking for a cheap macro lens to have a play around with. The nikon kit lens I have at the moment is pretty good but I'd like to get something that can get a bit closer.

There's a sigma 35-70mm f2.8-4 on ebay* at the moment that is tagged as a macro lens. In my n00b experience it looks more like a general purpose lens with a macro function than a dedicated macro lens.



Looking around on ebay it seems the nikon micro and other specific macro lenses can fetch a pretty high price but considering I'm just looking for a cheapy (under $100) is this about as good as I'll get or would I be better to hang out for something else ?

Cheers

Jay

* Don't anyone buy it from under me!

[xorl]

A cheap way to get a bit closer would be to purchase a set of closeup filters from a store. You can pick them up for around $70 or less. The quality isn't as good as a dedicated macro lens but they can get some great images. I used filters for a while with some success until succumbing to the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D (mmmm..).

If you want to be *really* cheap you can grab a magnifying glass from a newsagent and tape it to your lens .

[Justin]

I've seen some guys get some fantastic macros with the tamron 90mm - and if you check the ratings on this lens it rates very well.

[Matt. K]

Get a set of extension rings or a lens reversal ring and use your current lens. At f-11 or 16 it will be sharp enough.

[gstark]

Jay,

As Justing says, the Tamron 90 is a good lens, and good value.

Also worth consideration is a reversing ring.

What you need to consider is how many times do you want to spend that $100? If you just want to dabble in the macro sandpit, by all means, buy very cheap, but do so with the expectation that you are wasting your money. After all, what's the resale value going to be on a lens that costs less than $100?

If you like it, then set your sights on some really good glass, and head directly for that glass: do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and most importantly, do not stop for something that you think might do the job in the interim: it won't, and you won't be satisfied unless and until you get what you want.

[ATJ]

I'd recommend extension rings, too, except that as the kit lens doesn't have an aperture ring, you have no control over the aperture. I have a feeling you'll end up shooting at the maximum aperture.

If you have another lens and that lens has an aperture ring, an extension tube can be fantastic. There's no glass so you don't change the quality of the lens you are using. I did all my macro work using a PK-13 until I finally got the 60mm Micro Nikkor - and that was on a film camera.

[MATT]

If you want a cheap macro, look for a Tamron or simalr 70-300 with Macro ability.

It wont be a true Macro like the 90, but it will also give you a cheap longer lens.

MATT

[Glen]

Jay, considering the well known Sigma zoom-master? If you bought it less than $50-$60 why not? I also would suggest a s/h 50mm 1.8, sells for $180 new so much less s/h with a reversal ring. This would give you a makeshift macro and also a lens suitable for low light conditions due to its f1.8. The Sigma is a bit brighter f2.8 at the wide end, but in most circumstances does what the kit lens does, so you would probably keep the kit on.

[Hyena]

Xorl, I'm not quite that cheap that I'd resort to using a magnifying glass

I've seen some guys get some fantastic macros with the tamron 90mm

I think unfortunately that one is well out of my price range.

If you want a cheap macro, look for a Tamron or simalr 70-300 with Macro ability.

That's certainly an option. I was going to get a 70-300mm anyway (probably just a 4-5.6G) but I guess at that end of the spectrum the tamron or sigma's with the macro feature are probably similar quality for general use.

What you need to consider is how many times do you want to spend that $100? If you just want to dabble in the macro sandpit, by all means

That's exactly what I'm after I just want to have a "play" with macros basically and considering I don't have much to spend on lenses overall I don't want to pay a few hundred for a good macro lens when the majority of shots I'll be taking won't be macros.

I might just have a play with a reversing ring for now, altho I don't want to get any dust or nasties in the back of the lens...

[Justin]

Check ebay. I just purchased a 35-70 f2.8d which has a great macro capability (check my pbase under miscellany there are a couple of test shots).

It is also a fantastic general purpose lens - hasn't come off my camera in the week I've had it!

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... %3AIT&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... %3AIT&rd=1

[Hyena]

I also would suggest a s/h 50mm 1.8, sells for $180 new so much less s/h with a reversal ring

Actually, I bought a new one just yesterday morning! I had a look into the second hand ones but some of them have been going for up around $150 on ebay so I though $190 for a newy delivered with a hoya UV filter was a good option

The seller didn't have any reversal rings so I'll have to get from elsewhere.

[Glen]

Jay, be aware that a dedicated macro lens can also be used as a normal lens if you manage to find one cheap

[Aussie Dave]

Hyene
I have the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro and as a starters lens it is as good as you'll get, without getting into the "expensive" lenses....IMO.

Most of these "budget" lenses can take quite acceptable images (in the right conditions - and I stress this point strongly). Stray outside the lens' limitations and you'll soon find yourself lusting after a better lens (which is bound to happen very quickly - I can assure you).

Can I perhaps suggest that you go along to one the forums mini-meets and I'm sure there will be someone that can let you borrow a macro lens (either a budget one or a ridgey-didge macro lens). You'll very quickly be able to see the difference and can then decide if you'd prefer to go the whole nine yards and get a better lens from the get-go....or just dabble with a cheaper lens and improve your skills before acquiring a better lens.

Whilst I agree that buying cheaper lenses can be a waste of maney, especially if you intend on purchasing better lenses in the future, some of us (including me) don't have oodles of money to splash about on our hobbies, so one sometimes needs to make-do with what they can afford - until the time comes where you can afford that expensive lens.

I'm happy with my Sigma for now, but of course I lust after the 70-200 VR (amongst other lenses)....but reality lives close by, unfortunately....

[Hyena]

Jay, be aware that a dedicated macro lens can also be used as a normal lens if you manage to find one cheap

That'd probably be more of a consideration if I didn't already have the 18-70mm kit lens. I'm guessing if I did manage to pick up a cheapy the optics probably wouldn't be as good as the kit lens for a general purpose lens ?? (plus I now also have the f1.8 50mm) Likewise with the links you posted Justin, probably a bit pricey considering the lenses I already have...

Aussie Dave, you're right about the hobby budget. I've just bought a house and have a wedding coming up in a few months so my disposable income at the moment is probably on par with a sweatshop worker

Short of a dramatic change in circumstances I'll probably only ever be playing with the lower end stuff.

Have you got a gallery with some of the macro shots taken with this sigma Dave ?

[Aussie Dave]

Have you got a gallery with some of the macro shots taken with this sigma Dave ?

http://www.pixspot.com/thumbnails.php?album=373&page=1

If you look through this gallery there should be a few macro shots here & there....

[Glen]

Jay, didn't realise you had the 50 1.8, just buy a reversing ring for $30 off ebay and you are good to go. More than enough to dip your toe in the water and keeps your money in your pocket for later

[gstark]

and have a wedding coming up in a few months so my disposable income at the moment

Doesn't the cost of a wedding come within the scope of "discretionary spending", and thus one can choose to avoid it?

[Hyena]

Unfortunately wedding expenditure comes just after mortage repayments and food bills. I was able to "scam" the initial purchase of the D70 from the wedding budget under the pretense of us needing a good camera to take on the honeymoon but any further spending is largely wishful thinking

[the foto fanatic]

I'd be thinking of using close-up filters or macro tubes if I had a limited budget.
Either will give you an acceptable result.

[Yi-P]

I still use my reversing ring with 50/1.8 for (near) 1:1 reproduction ratio macro. Who say you cant get good results from it? I've got plenty of happy results which even got one of my images on the zenfolio front page for their 'ads' .

Reversing shorter lenses can give you even more magnification!! I use the 28/2.8 to get over 3 times life-size reproduction, its awesome closeup if you know how to use it right (and the challenging part is fun).

Some of the pics are in my gallery on my sig below.