closeup lens for nikon ?
- Thread starter nashorn
- Start date
JetCat USA
In Memoriam
I use a 0.45 Hi-Def Macro lens on my Nikon 990 and it does a great job.
JetCat USA
In Memoriam
to tell ya the truth i got my lenses about 4 yrs ago and really don't have a clue even where i got that particular one from.
i just checked the lens and it's made by Digital Optics Japan
i just checked the lens and it's made by Digital Optics Japan
shullat
New member
You could also consider getting yourself a Sigma MACRO 50mm F2.8 EX DG or a Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor. I am currently using the Sigma 50mm...I regret not having splashed out a bit more money and gotten the 100mm. As a first lense though its great, if you can go for the 105 mm.
The 50mm should set you back around $300 and the 105mm around $500.
The 50mm should set you back around $300 and the 105mm around $500.
superjohnny
New member
I've been doing a similar search for a long time and here is a list of lenses I've come up with in the <150mm range:
* Sigma 50mm ($250)
* Quandary 50mm (made by Sigma and about $150)
* Nikon 60mm 2.8D ($330)
* Tamron 90mm ($400)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D ($500 used)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D VR (~$750)
* Sigma 105mm
* Tokina 100mm
Prices are not real accurate, but just what I remember off the top of my head. Check out BHphoto.com or adorama.com to figure that out. Truth be told they all make great photo's and will probably all exceed your need. Check out www.nikonians.org for more Nikon talk.
I went to a local shop over the weekend and the 60mm 2.8D is a VERY nice lens. I preferred it to the Tamron because it seemed a bit faster and the AF didn't hunt as much, but the Tamron is 90mm and razor sharp so... The 105mm VR is kind of the king of the hill, but it costs real money. I've read many good things about the Sigma 105, but never used or held it myself.
Again this is based on mostly what I've read so take it at face value.
* Sigma 50mm ($250)
* Quandary 50mm (made by Sigma and about $150)
* Nikon 60mm 2.8D ($330)
* Tamron 90mm ($400)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D ($500 used)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D VR (~$750)
* Sigma 105mm
* Tokina 100mm
Prices are not real accurate, but just what I remember off the top of my head. Check out BHphoto.com or adorama.com to figure that out. Truth be told they all make great photo's and will probably all exceed your need. Check out www.nikonians.org for more Nikon talk.
I went to a local shop over the weekend and the 60mm 2.8D is a VERY nice lens. I preferred it to the Tamron because it seemed a bit faster and the AF didn't hunt as much, but the Tamron is 90mm and razor sharp so... The 105mm VR is kind of the king of the hill, but it costs real money. I've read many good things about the Sigma 105, but never used or held it myself.
Again this is based on mostly what I've read so take it at face value.
shullat
New member
Just to add to superjohnny's post. I was looking for a new macro yesterday. I tried the Tamron 90mm, the Sigma 105mm and the Nikon 105mm VR on a Nikon D80.
The Tamron was a bit fidgety to place on the body, not a big deal, but took me off. The shots were pretty good but a bit on the dark side and a bit noisy.
The Nikon is a beaut.....in all aspects. Focusing was lightning quick, shots are clear, beautiful balance of colors, and even when jerking the camera it's still precise. The only problem is the price.
The Sigma is the closer to the Nikon in terms of overall picture quality, a nice balance on colors although a bit more subdued than the Nikon.
In my opinion in represents the best value for money out of the 3, but than it all depends on what you need of course.
I walked out of the shop with a Sigma wide angle 10-20mm. Not exactly a macro but i wanted it anyhow.
Next on the wish list is the Nikon 105 mm macro VR.....although i'll probably have to settle for the Sigma.
The Tamron was a bit fidgety to place on the body, not a big deal, but took me off. The shots were pretty good but a bit on the dark side and a bit noisy.
The Nikon is a beaut.....in all aspects. Focusing was lightning quick, shots are clear, beautiful balance of colors, and even when jerking the camera it's still precise. The only problem is the price.
The Sigma is the closer to the Nikon in terms of overall picture quality, a nice balance on colors although a bit more subdued than the Nikon.
In my opinion in represents the best value for money out of the 3, but than it all depends on what you need of course.
I walked out of the shop with a Sigma wide angle 10-20mm. Not exactly a macro but i wanted it anyhow.
Next on the wish list is the Nikon 105 mm macro VR.....although i'll probably have to settle for the Sigma.
Ebn
Member
* Sigma 50mm ($250)
* Quandary 50mm (made by Sigma and about $150)
* Nikon 60mm 2.8D ($330)
* Tamron 90mm ($400)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D ($500 used)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D VR (~$750)
* Sigma 105mm
* Tokina 100mm
Out of that list: Nikon 105 VR > Tamron 90mm > Nikon 60mm > Nikon 105mm > Sigma 105mm
That's how they stood when I tested them against each other in terms of sharpness, contrast, build quality, etc.
Of those, I still own the Nikon 105mm VR, Tamron 90mm Adaptall mount, and the Nikon 60mm.
Also, if you're really in a bind for a cheap macro lens, take a look at the 50mm f/1.8D along w/either a reversing ring or a set of Kenko tubes. It'll cost less than the cheapest macro above (other than the Quandaray, which isn't really made by Sigma; last time I checked, they're made by Ritz/Wolf Camera) and will give you a fast 50mm prime.
Lastly, let me know if you want to check out any of the lenses above at the next BAR meet.
* Quandary 50mm (made by Sigma and about $150)
* Nikon 60mm 2.8D ($330)
* Tamron 90mm ($400)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D ($500 used)
* Nikon 105mm 2.8D VR (~$750)
* Sigma 105mm
* Tokina 100mm
Out of that list: Nikon 105 VR > Tamron 90mm > Nikon 60mm > Nikon 105mm > Sigma 105mm
That's how they stood when I tested them against each other in terms of sharpness, contrast, build quality, etc.
Of those, I still own the Nikon 105mm VR, Tamron 90mm Adaptall mount, and the Nikon 60mm.
Also, if you're really in a bind for a cheap macro lens, take a look at the 50mm f/1.8D along w/either a reversing ring or a set of Kenko tubes. It'll cost less than the cheapest macro above (other than the Quandaray, which isn't really made by Sigma; last time I checked, they're made by Ritz/Wolf Camera) and will give you a fast 50mm prime.
Lastly, let me know if you want to check out any of the lenses above at the next BAR meet.
KurtsReef
Premium Member
I owned a copy of Sigma's 105mm macro for Nikon. My experience with that lens was slow AF that hunted and was noisy. Did not find it too be a good purchase and sold it.
Went without a macro lens for a few years and bought a used Nikon 105mm, not a fast focuser either but finds the focus better than the sigma did and not noisey at all.
Went without a macro lens for a few years and bought a used Nikon 105mm, not a fast focuser either but finds the focus better than the sigma did and not noisey at all.
superjohnny
New member
danskim from what I've read the VR is not as useful for macro photography. It is more for taking portrait shots & shots with > 3 ft. working distance.
For those who don't want to read the article or search for my reference:
"At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create)."
I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative. I'm only trying to share what I've read.
For those who don't want to read the article or search for my reference:
"At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create)."
I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative. I'm only trying to share what I've read.
danskim
New member
Don't worry. I didn't take it that way.
I am a Canon user, so I don't have any actual experience with the lens. From common sense, I just figured that some sort of image stabilization/vibration reduction could only help.
But those are nice pictures Ebn. Especially without a tripod.
VR (IS) works fine for macro, with a caveat. It can cancel out "side to side" shake but it can't help with back and forward motion.
One challenge with macro is that motion doesn't just blur your image, it take it out of focus. In traditional shooting you can bump your shutter speed to stop motion. In macro, it stops the motion but the image might still be out of focus.
That being said, Eric has a much steadier hand than I.
One challenge with macro is that motion doesn't just blur your image, it take it out of focus. In traditional shooting you can bump your shutter speed to stop motion. In macro, it stops the motion but the image might still be out of focus.
That being said, Eric has a much steadier hand than I.
