They are a little more than Canon L lenses, but not by much. I have them and highly recomend them.
Now that I've got a DSLR, which macro lens should I buy?
- Thread starter BlueCorn
- Start date
They are a little more than Canon L lenses, but not by much. I have them and highly recomend them.
Pufferd300s
New member
Get the nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS its one of nikons sharpest lenses it is manual focus though Idk if that would bother u
Pufferd300s
New member
You can get some really nice Minolta maxxum lenses for a good price
Ferguson1977
New member
I am shopping between the T3i and D5100. Since performance is so similar, I am trying to let the lens decide my decision. The 2 macro lenses I am comparing is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM versus the Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro. Both are in the $500 range. I realize the Nikon has VR but that isn't too important for macro on a tripod so my main concern is the f/2.8 versus the f/3.5 lens. I understand the difference but don't have any hands on experience between the 2 settings, so I am trying to find out if there is a big real world difference between shooting at 2.8 versus 3.5? Would I appreciate having the 2.8 or would it not be missed?
f/2.8 and f/3.5 are the maximum aperture of the lens. The Canon lens listed allows 2/3rds of a "stop" more light than the Nikon you mentioned. 2/3rds of a stop isn't a lot and could easily be accounted for by adjusting your ISO or shutter speed.
Both of those lenses are very sharp. I wouldn't necessarily base the camera purchase decision, that's going to lock me into a system, on a macro lens. Buy the camera that you "like" more. Really.
Both of those lenses are very sharp. I wouldn't necessarily base the camera purchase decision, that's going to lock me into a system, on a macro lens. Buy the camera that you "like" more. Really.
Ferguson1977
New member
Thanks that helps alot as I am preferring the D5100 but was liking the Canon lens as it seemed more flexible.
Ferguson1977
New member
Because its 1000 dollars lol. I'd like to stay around 400-500 on a macro lens.
When it comes to macro lenses, there really isn't a lot to concern yourself when it comes to Sigma/Tamron/Nikon/Canon. Optically, all are going to be extremely good as any little flaw will be more than apparent. The Sigma 105 and 150mms are some of the most popular macro lenses. Very comparable to the N/C counter parts at much lower price points.
How "fast" do you want/need?...aka f2.8 vs f3.5mm
Well that's a personal preference that no one can really answer for you and for those of us that try...we are "biased" and predisposed based on "our" needs.
I'll admit I'm a fast glass junky. Which means if Im eyeing a lens purchase and I have a choice of getting A) thats f2.8 and B) that's f4 I will usually (not always) favor/want the faster glass and save for it if need be.
While you have options if SS is the concern (bump ISO) there are limits. I do a ton of low light and often stop action in low light so thats important. Then to I use filters a lot so again the faster the lens when I add a filter Im left with a higher SS all else equal. I also really enjoy the options for DoF and artistic choices faster glass affords. While you can replicate this in post there are limits. Basically when eyeing the Canon 24-105 f4 L and the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L I opted for the faster f2.8 because I felt ultimately it would give me more options and more options/choice the more power I have. However as I said, I am heavily biased both in terms personal preference and need.
"but"
With Macros, unless you are using for things other than Macro photography (and you will) having glass that fast is almost immaterial because you will almost always be at f11 and lower.
So how often would you open a macro lens to f2.8?
Not very.If Ive shot 10,000 images with my macro Im willing to bet less than 50 were shot at f4 or wider.
How "fast" do you want/need?...aka f2.8 vs f3.5mm
Well that's a personal preference that no one can really answer for you and for those of us that try...we are "biased" and predisposed based on "our" needs.
I'll admit I'm a fast glass junky. Which means if Im eyeing a lens purchase and I have a choice of getting A) thats f2.8 and B) that's f4 I will usually (not always) favor/want the faster glass and save for it if need be.
While you have options if SS is the concern (bump ISO) there are limits. I do a ton of low light and often stop action in low light so thats important. Then to I use filters a lot so again the faster the lens when I add a filter Im left with a higher SS all else equal. I also really enjoy the options for DoF and artistic choices faster glass affords. While you can replicate this in post there are limits. Basically when eyeing the Canon 24-105 f4 L and the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L I opted for the faster f2.8 because I felt ultimately it would give me more options and more options/choice the more power I have. However as I said, I am heavily biased both in terms personal preference and need.
"but"
With Macros, unless you are using for things other than Macro photography (and you will) having glass that fast is almost immaterial because you will almost always be at f11 and lower.
So how often would you open a macro lens to f2.8?
Not very.If Ive shot 10,000 images with my macro Im willing to bet less than 50 were shot at f4 or wider.
Ferguson1977
New member
Thanks JBen for that well worded response. It made perfect sense to me and clarified some concerns I was having.
laxing22
New member
I have a question here then. With Macro, I (and seems like many) like the Bokeh / narrow DOF shooting with a fast macro. Do you notice a loss in bokeh shooting at the slower stops?
Bokeh is a a function by depth of field. As you stop down the lens, your DOF increases. With additional DOF, those specular highlights come into focus; eliminating bokeh. Anything that changes your DOF impacts your bokeh.
I often use bokeh to create a pleasing background. This image, at f/16 would've looked completely different.
http://www.binaryemulsion.com/wordpress/2010/05/11/dogwood-along-the-merced-river/
http://www.binaryemulsion.com/wordpress/2010/05/11/dogwood-along-the-merced-river/
flyfisher2
Member
Canon L series all the way... I switched from Nikon film to Canon DSLR several years ago and don't regret it. I read rave reviews on the Nikon bodies but you can't knock Canon glass. The L series is great.
My 24-70 lives on the 5D mark II. Awesome portraits. Very nice bokeh BlueCorn.
My 24-70 lives on the 5D mark II. Awesome portraits. Very nice bokeh BlueCorn.
I have no idea what your budget is. It'll be virtually impossible to get 1:1 magnification for most of that tank. If money is no object, I'd look at the Nikon Telephoto AF Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D ED-IF
Even that lens has a working distance of only 1.6'
illcssd
New member
So doing a lot of reading, but I'm not finding this lens in the 4 pages of this thread. I have a Nikon D40, and am wondering if anyone has this lens and it's any good?
Craigslist ad:
Nikon Nikkor 105mm f 2.5 Ai-s MANUAL focus lens in MINT condition.
This lens is extremely sharp and the lens of choice for portraiture. $275.00 obo
Same lens in same condition sells easily for $350+ on EBay if you can find one.
This lens is truly MINT and comes with front and rear caps, also mint. email any questions
and i'll get right back with you and thanks.
Craigslist ad:
Nikon Nikkor 105mm f 2.5 Ai-s MANUAL focus lens in MINT condition.
This lens is extremely sharp and the lens of choice for portraiture. $275.00 obo
Same lens in same condition sells easily for $350+ on EBay if you can find one.
This lens is truly MINT and comes with front and rear caps, also mint. email any questions
and i'll get right back with you and thanks.
