Nikon Macro Lens Question

[skoomamonster]

Hi, I found a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto Lens for $120 on craigslist and would like your opinion on this lens. I would like to take macro shots of my corals and fish and would also like to use it as a telephoto lens but that isnt as important as macro shots. It has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2, is that good or is 1:1 better or is 1:4 better? Thanks for your help.

This is a picture that the guy who is selling said he took with it also it will be going on a Nikon D50 thanks again.

<img src="http://images.craigslist.org/01020901040001030220080715a098784ed7d01c7179001277.jpg">

 

[skoomamonster]

What about a Promaster AF 100mm F3.5 Macro lens it has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:1 and its $100

 

[Robb in Austin]

I'm no expert but I would think the Promaster, being a prime lens and a little faster, would be better. At those prices, why not buy both? Hit mom and dad up for a loan/b-day/early Xmas, etc.

 

[skoomamonster]

Im kinda leaning toward the promaster too. Has anyone used this lens before with good results? And Robb in Austin haha i wish i could get both but im already getting this lens through a loan from my parents and i would rather buy only one lens and use the money i save to buy some more corals also what does it mean that its a little faster? Thanks

 

[Robb in Austin]

Faster=largest possible aperture(3.5 vs 4). It means you would be able to shoot in lower overall lighting. The difference is not that great really. If it was a 2.8 vs 4 then that would be a worthwhile jump.

Another option would be used equipment from a local camera shop.

My take is, for $120, the Sigma will probably be a better overall lens, that can do some macro work, but is not a true macro lens.

Check over at Nikonians.org for reviews. You may not find one, but it can't hurt to run a search. Also, see if anyone reviewed the lens from B&H or Adorama or some of the other on line vendors.

Also, I forgot to answer this in your original question, but 1:1 is life size. The closer you can get to that ratio, or even over ie 2:1, the better for macro.

 

[Robb in Austin]

I just ran a quick search over at Nikonians and the Promaster got some goodish reviews. Do some research over there before pulling the trigger. Also, if you can, try to play with the Sigma and see what it can do.

 

[sphelps]

You get what you pay for. The sigma 70-300 for $120 will give you very little use. I've used this lens before thinking that you couldn't go wrong for that price but you can. Focusing is ridiculously slow and noisy and at the 300mm range you defiantly need a tripod. For a macro that range is huge and you'll never get a sharp picture out of it, not to mention your minimum focusing distance is something like 36". You really need a prime lens for macro photography.

For a zoom lens the Nikon AF-S 70-300 VR ED is very nice and a good buy at $500. For a macro you'll have to spend a little more but you'll want a prime lens, the Nikon 105 VR is nice but pricey. There are alternatives but macro lenses are a little more of a specialty and you pay for that.

 

[sphelps]

Oh, also you can get that Sigma 70-300 on ebay for like $80.