Help me decide on a Macro lens for Nikon D40

[jackson6745]

All comments welcome!

 

[Evil Nemo]

105mm asi Micro Nikon
100mm Kiron Macro
100mm macro Tokina
macro 90mm Tamron
Save some money. Focus manually. Meter seperate. Have a lens that won't break in 2 years. Don't go along with the crowd. Get the same OR better results.

 

[jackson6745]

Evil, thanks for the info. It's not about following the crowd I just don't know enough to make my own decision. I don't mind focusing manually if it will save $$. I'll look into the lens you suggest.

 

[nickb]

Do you want the lens to photograph your tank? Or for general macro work?

 

[jackson6745]

Mostly for tank pics. So I guess the VR lens is not a must?

 

[nickb]

You'll be using a tripod for most tank photos so VR isn't an issue (it would be truned off anyway on a tripod). If you were looking to take macros of insects, etc. the longer focal length of the Sigma might have helped. Partly to reduce the risk of spooking them and partly to keep you away from stinging, etc.

You probably won't be 'wrong' which ever one you get. I've seen many superb picture taken with both lens. On line reviews of both are highly positive; the Sigma gets slightly better ratings but not by much. The Nikon costs about 25% more. Looks like a toss-up (big help ). I voted for the Sigma.

 

[latazyo]

can we have a sticky thread for D40 macro lens choices?

the nikkor 60mm micro is also a solid unit, but I think the tamron 90 is a way solid choice

or the sigma 150

 

[nickb]

Or the Tokina 100mm. Lots of excellent macro choices!

The Tamron 'trombones' during focusing (the lens extends). That might make it is less attractive for tank photos where the lens may be placed very close to the glass/acrylic panel of the tank - would require moving the tripod around to avoid hitting the glass.

 

[kaskiles]

Do they make a 150mm f/2.8 macro (like the Sigma), but without the Auto focus? It's listing at around $700, and I assume a good deal of that price is auto focus?

Even the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is listed as auto focus, but it down around $450...
They keep listing a $90 rebate on this lens that is good till the end of the year, this is making me crazy b/c I didn't want to spend much more on my tank until next year

 

[nickb]

I doubt that auto-focus is adding much to the price. The higher price will be related to the quality of the glass, coatings, number of elements, etc. Plus, the longer focal length while retaining f2.8 aperature capability. Other than buying second-hand old lenses (from back in the 80's and earlier), are there any non-autofocus lenses for sale on the market? All autofocus lenses can have the autofocus disabled to turn them into a manual focus lens (I assume you already knew that and were only asking from a price perspective )

Tamron makes a 180mm macro which gets good reviews and is selling for about $650 on B&H.

 

[latazyo]

nickb, by "non autofocus" Im thinking he means that it won't AF on his body

I think you're right about most lenses having autofocus, maybe except the Zeiss lenses but I dont' think that's what we're talking about now

 

[InLimbo87]

I'd vote, but the Tamron 90mm isn't on there

 

[latazyo]

I voted for the Sig 150, but in case you have that item bookmarked somewhere, the one you copied and pasted is for a sigma camera, not a nikon

but they still make that exact lens for nikon

just sayin

 

[nickb]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13455515#post13455515 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by latazyo
nickb, by "non autofocus" Im thinking he means that it won't AF on his body

I think you're right about most lenses having autofocus, maybe except the Zeiss lenses but I dont' think that's what we're talking about now

Oh, you mean without AF-S (or the Sigma name for that)? That would make a lot more sense; too much sense for my brain first thing in the morning

 

[latazyo]

I think that's what he was saying

the sigma designation is HSM, I believe

 

[jackson6745]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13456685#post13456685 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by InLimbo87
I'd vote, but the Tamron 90mm isn't on there

So you think the tamron 90 will take better macros than the Sigma 150mm?
Or is it for the $$ the Tamron is a great lens?

 

[jackson6745]

Wouldn't the 150mm sigma be able to take better quality macros than the 105mm Nikon?

 

[InLimbo87]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13457815#post13457815 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jackson6745
So you think the tamron 90 will take better macros than the Sigma 150mm?
Or is it for the $$ the Tamron is a great lens?

The Sigma 150mm and Nikkor 105mm are more highly regarded for macro lenses. However, my Tamron is very sharp, and in my opinion a very similar lens for about a third the priced (in used markets at least)

 

[latazyo]

Richard,

min focus distance on the nikkor is 12"
min focus distance on the sigma is 15"

the added reach of the sig might allow for a closer view

if closeness of view is the only factor you're considering, then yes it will take better pics

if you're talking about sharpness, contrast, etc then I guess its up to personal opinion

 

[jackson6745]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13459267#post13459267 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by latazyo
Richard,

min focus distance on the nikkor is 12"
min focus distance on the sigma is 15"

the added reach of the sig might allow for a closer view

if closeness of view is the only factor you're considering, then yes it will take better pics

if you're talking about sharpness, contrast, etc then I guess its up to personal opinion

Thank you.