macro lenses, what focal point fits our needs best?

[areze]

Im shopping macro lenses for a nikon D90.

the choices on the table...

Tamron 90mm
Tamron 180mm
Sigma 100mm
Sigma 150mm

at this point, Im told the Tamron 90mm is the bees knees.

my question is... is 90mm enough for our needs, we cannot always bring the subject to the camera... so Im wondering if a 180mm tamron would afford greater flexibility with this...

I think it would, however the downsides as I see them, 180mm, you NEED a tripod more or less. which means good luck shooting fish, and very limited use outside of macro purposes.

100mm could be shot by hand, and could be used as a nice 90mm prime lens for portraits... also a bit cheaper.

thoughts?

 

[this is me]

Longer is better. But make sure you have a sturdy tripod to stabilize it.

 

[aleks192]

I use a Tamron 90mm f2.8.....it works great!

 

[areze]

kinda wish I could get something that was more magnification than 1:1. but I dont see any such lens for a nikon

could get an adaptor and flip a lens around I guess :/

 

[RichK]

Of those 4, I would say the Tamron. However, you should look for a clean used copy of either the 60 or 105mm Nikons. Try www.keh.com.

 

[areze]

645 for a used 1000$ lens vs a 420 after rebate for a brand new tamron 90mm...

its hard to swallow the nikon based on that. I get worried about a used lens too... "slight surface wear, glass in good condition"? I like glass in perfect condition :/

 

[BlueCorn]

The beauty of buying used from someplace like keh, b&h or adorama is that they generally have a 90 day return policy.

 

[BlueCorn]

Something else to keep in mind is that all of those lenses will give you the same magnification. The only thing that differs is working distance. The longer lenses will also give you better bokah.

 

[areze]

yeah, thats why I just kinda decided the 180mm isnt worth it. Im really hunting for something that can do better than 1:1. but it doesnt exist for nikon.

 

[BlueCorn]

You could switch to Canon or you could buy a set of extension tubes.

 

[RichK]

I have bought used lenses before. I think places like KEH, B&H, and Adorama all rate their used equipment well. I bought a used 300 2.8 from Adorama 2 years ago in E condition. Accordinging to them, E can show some wear. When I received the lens, it looked NEW. I could not find a mark on it. So, don't totally "write off" used gear. There are always people switching back and forth from Canon to Nikon and Nikon to Canon all the time. You just have to be at the right place at the right time to take advantage of it.

Adorama currently has a few 60mm Nikons from $325-$375 and they have a 105 for $539 FWIW.

 

[areze]

on both keh and adorama, the used lenses dont show it as being the VR version either... not sure if thats just left out, or if it really is the old generation. guessing old. that kinda kills the huge bonus to the nikon 105mm macro over tamron 90mm, I think anyway...

 

[Waterobert]

I use Sigma 150mm and I love it. I can take pics of my tank from about 5 feet or as close as 15 inches. I have my camera on the tripod and use remote. Anything less than 100 mm is too short IMO

 

[xtm]

I wouldn't worry about not having VR for macro photography, as you will be on tripod AND manual focus most of the time anyways. The 105mm VR is excellent, but expensive. The Tammy 90 is an excellent lens - a perfect balance of great IQ, sharpness, color rendition, and value. (note that they just came out with the Di II version, that has a built-in AF motor) The Tamron 90mm is also excellent for portraits.

If you don't deal with skittish insects, and you have the ability to get close (like on a fish tank) you might want to consider the 60mm Micro Nikkor AF-D (about ~$325 used). VR is not needed at 60mm and (again) you don't need VR when shooting on a tripod. 60mm on a DX body is about 90mm on 35mm or FX. Also If you come across a 105mm Micro Nikkor AF-D (the old style) I say get it. It's around $400 used. This is the older version of the 105mm VR.

If you deal with skittish insects and would like the extra working distance, the Sigma 150 is an overall excellent lens, but it's on the expensive side (~$700)

A lot of people have had some success with a 70-300 VR and Canon 500D, but this is not a substitute for a true macro lens.

 

[RichK]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15239287#post15239287 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by areze
on both keh and adorama, the used lenses dont show it as being the VR version either... not sure if thats just left out, or if it really is the old generation. guessing old. that kinda kills the huge bonus to the nikon 105mm macro over tamron 90mm, I think anyway...

IMO, VR is not necessary when using the lens in macro situations. With macro, you should be using a sturdy tripod, which defeats the need for VR.

 

[areze]

for corals, I think a tripod is a given in any case, I dont suspect VR would come close to the steadyness of a tripod. but... for hand holding, which will inevitably take place as I chase a fish around the tank, or in public where grabing a tripod just isnt realistic, wouldnt mind the VR... but not 900$ worth for a 105mm lens

they have the non VRs there, both places, but not down to 400$, closer to 600 infact, for used lenses.

decisions decisions...

60mm leaves me 3.5" of working distance to the subject, 100mm gets me 6-7". I am just going around in circles here...

on one hand, Id love the "wide" portrait lens of the 60mm, and can afford a higher quality nikkor lens.

on the down side, 4" is really close to the lens, and Id only be able to maximize the lens on things that I can pick up and bring to the wall of the tank. (might be wrong, but 60mm lens... past a foot or so, the macro lens is no better than a 70-200mm "macro" that does 3:1 magnfication with plenty of distance to work with).

but the 100m give up a ton of function at doing basicly anything besides macro... (100mm seems like a lousy middle tele, too tight inside, too wide outside). and in all honestly, whats 7" get me that 4" didnt? still bringing the corals to the wall of the tank to photograph them...

 

[dendronepthya]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15240315#post15240315 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by areze
for corals, I think a tripod is a given in any case, I dont suspect VR would come close to the steadyness of a tripod. but... for hand holding, which will inevitably take place as I chase a fish around the tank, or in public where grabing a tripod just isnt realistic, wouldnt mind the VR... but not 900$ worth for a 105mm lens

If you are hand holding and chasing around a moving target, VR is not going to help you at all. The only thing that will help you in that situation is faster shutter speed as a result of larger aperture and/or high ISO. VR helps in situations where you are taking a picture of a non-moving subject where you can use a slower shutter speed hand held.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Yes VR, IS as I know it, does suck for moving subjects. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS has a nice feature though. Two IS modes dictate whether the lens balances N, S, E, W or N, S only. If I have the camera in landscape position tracking a subject traveling E/W on the plain, the IS won't fight against me. What really puts a smile on my face is that I have 3 stop IS AND f/2.8 across the spectrum. With my 24-70, I can easily skate by in 95%+ of situations without IS. With my 70-200, I would be lost without it.

 

[dendronepthya]

I agree, I really like having IS on the 70-200 given the fact I am always hand holding it. As a general rule I like having IS on any lens that is 100mm or more in focal length. Any slightest hand shake really shows up at the longer focal lengths. Like I said before though, IS still doesn't fix fast moving objects, only shaky hands.

 

[areze]

fast moving subjects = shaky hands though... IME anyway.

well I think Im going to go with the tamron 90mm. the nikon 105 VR is just so expensive for a lens that will find itself on a tripod most of the time.

wish I could afford the 70-200 nikon VR though... who wants to make a deal!