Now that I've got a DSLR, which macro lens should I buy?

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
UPS just dropped off your new DSLR, you've charged the battery and started shooting like crazy at the stuff in your tank. After downloading the pictures onto your computer you realize that they look nothing like the close-up shots so often seen in this forum and elsewhere on the board. Now what?

With the kit lens, most consumer DSLR cameras are just expensive point and shoot cameras. The ability to adapt the lens to a particular shooting situation is the primary reason to go that route. The next question is which lens to buy.

Macro photography, strictly speaking starts at 1:1 magnification. The 1 to 1 ratio means that the image that gets projected onto your camera sensor is the same size as the object in real life. Anything less than 1:1 isn't truly macro but rather a "closeup."

A number of zoom lenses include the word macro in their titles and descriptions but that's mostly marketing. Any true macro lens will be a fixed focal length; i.e. 100mm not 28-300mm. Macro lenses can also be used for non-closeup work. What distinguishes them from non-macro lenses of the same focal length is their minimum focusing distance. For example, a non macro lens of 100mm focal length has a minimum focus distance of about 5-6'. The macro version about 1'. The magnification is due to the camera being closer to the subject. We call that working distance.

There are a bunch of 1:1 macro lenses from 60-200mm. They are all capable of the same magnification but the longer the focal length, the farther you can be from your subject and still get 1:1. For most aquariums, the 100mm range is a pretty good fit. It's a good trade off of value vs working distance. (If you shoot Olympus, you'll want to be looking at their 35mm, with their 2x crop factor it's functionally equivalent.) Some lenses, like the Canon MP-E 65 can go all the way to 5:1 magnification but it's a very specialized lens.

You can't go wrong Nikon and Canon's 100mm macro lenses but there are other options if you'd like to save some money. Tamron makes a 90mm and Sigma a 105mm that are both very sharp lenses. The only drawback, to both, is they are external focusing. External means the lens barrel extends during focusing. In your garden it isn't a big deal but if you're up against the aquarium glass it can be a real hassle.

Extension tubes, and screw on adapters can be useful but don't replace the functionality of a true macro lens.
 
Last edited:
Macro lens buyer's guide

Macro lens buyer's guide

If I may add, I've made a list of the most commonly-used macro lenses for the Nikon mount:

macro-nikon.mount.jpg
 
Can you recommend the best bang-for-buck Nikon on that list?

In my opinion?... the Tamron 90. Also known as the "portrait macro" due to its clarity, coupled with a silky, creamy bokeh. The only drawback is that its front element sticks out when focusing, and AF is somewhat slow, but it does have a limiter switch. Other than that, it can give the 105VR a serious run for the money.
 
Looking at the Tamron 90 for my Nikon 5000 and I'm wondering what advantage is there to the one with the motor??? Some sites don't even list which version they're selling? I'm a DSLR newb and I'm stuck on this one. I thought the camera itself did the autofocus, so why would a lens need a motor?
 
Looking at the Tamron 90 for my Nikon 5000 and I'm wondering what advantage is there to the one with the motor??? Some sites don't even list which version they're selling? I'm a DSLR newb and I'm stuck on this one. I thought the camera itself did the autofocus, so why would a lens need a motor?

Because entry-level cameras like the D40, D40x, D60, D5000 and D3000 don't have AF motors in the body. These cameras can only autofocus lenses that have their own built-in motor (BIM). Higher-end cameras such as D90, D70, D300, D3, etc have their own motors to drive the AF on (usually) older glasses.

To answer your question, you need the Tamron 90 with a BIM because your D5000 has no motor in the body and it will not AF the Tamron by itself.

Once upon a time, Nikon was SO BEHIND on technology that they only used (and still use to this day) the screwdriver AF, which is slow and noisy. They are now slowly catching up and has since introduced several lenses with BIM (called AF-S in Nikon speak) All newly-released Nikkors today have AF-S. The higher-end Nikon bodies still have screwdriver motors so that you can still use your OLD Nikkors. Eventually, everything in Nikon-land will have AF-S... maybe in 20 years.
 
To answer your question, you need the Tamron 90 with a BIM because your D5000 has no motor in the body and it will not AF the Tamron by itself.

Ummm, we're talking macro photography here... you really should focus manually for this, so I don't think that a lack of an auto-focus motor would be any disadvantage in this application.
 
hey guys, is the Nikon 85 micro worth considering? Seems to be priced right at around $500. I thought, when I looked a year ago, the 105 was around $600-$650, but now they seem to be well over $800. Ouch.

Aaron
D80 and 18-200
 
I have recently acquired a Nikon D40 camera. It's not the best, I know. However, it is for me. Considering I only paid $200.00 for the camera that has hardly been used but a handful of times.

Anyways, the camera came with a Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm lense. I am looking into getting some more lenses for my beautiful device here. So, I am wanting to get into some micro photography, but I'm a little unsure of which macro lense would be the best bang for the buck.

Any suggestions anyone?

Thanks!
 
I have a Canon D10, and a 100mm Macro lense. I do a lot of top down shots of my corals, and with the 100mm Macro it is perfect for close up. What I would like to get now is a lense that will enable me to get colony shots that is close but not so close that it crops out portions of the colony. Say I want to take a picture of a 6" favia that is 5" below water. What lense is the right lense to get the whole thing in focus without being too close?
 
debating between nikon 105mm macro, or 60mm... i know the 105 is overall a bit nicer of a lens, and it gives you a bit more working room with it's minimum focusing distance, but how much of a difference does this make for reef tank photography? Is the extra telephoto like coverage a hassle, or a blessing? Is it worth the extra money?
 
If you read the original first post, you can probably make that decision on your own. ;)

Yes, the first post is definitive and excellent. That being said I use both the nikon 60 and 105 (but not to shoot tanks) underwater in a housing. Although these are both AF lenses, I always use them on manual focus.
 
Ummm, we're talking macro photography here... you really should focus manually for this, so I don't think that a lack of an auto-focus motor would be any disadvantage in this application.

I understand your point but if you are trying to shoot a moving fish then autofocus is helpful. :)
 
I also would have to agree on the sigma 150 f2.8 since I own that particular lens.
for the money its a great combination on quality and price.
 
Back
Top