chrisqueenz
New member
Just curious, I have a Nikon DSLR, and I am in the market for a micro lens. (Looking to get some great close-ups)
Thanks
Thanks
Which Macro lens do you use?
- Thread starter chrisqueenz
- Start date
chrisqueenz
New member
I have someone giving me a great deal on this lens just wondering if it will be good for my use
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300...tal/dp/B00066EK4A/ref=cm_pdp_wish_itm_title_2
Any suggestions?
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300...tal/dp/B00066EK4A/ref=cm_pdp_wish_itm_title_2
Any suggestions?
As a lens to add to your collection, it's "okay." It's not a macro lens, despite what it says.
Macro (or micro in Nikon speak) is a lens that does 1:1 magnification. That means that the image of your subject projected on your sensor is the same size as the object. That lens only does 1:2.9. There aren't zoom lenses, that I'm aware of, that truly are macro lenses. For aquarium work, a lens in the 90-110mm range works pretty well.
Macro (or micro in Nikon speak) is a lens that does 1:1 magnification. That means that the image of your subject projected on your sensor is the same size as the object. That lens only does 1:2.9. There aren't zoom lenses, that I'm aware of, that truly are macro lenses. For aquarium work, a lens in the 90-110mm range works pretty well.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Misled showed one of the highest quality options for you. I would not recommend the lens you linked to, even for a lens to add to your collection. IMO f/6.3 is too limiting at 300mm to be forced to use it all the time. Basically the lens becomes a paper weight out of broad daylight. Cloudy? forget it! It is by no means a "close-up" lens in any application.
Much of what you hear regarding photography is opinion, even if it's stated as fact. Be careful about statements like this because they're meaningless unless put into the proper frame of reference. For you perhaps that's just to slow to be useful but that doesn't make it necessarily so for everyone else.
Example. I rarely shoot at an aperture larger than f/8, most of the time I'm at f/11. Whether f/6.3 is limiting or not is a function of how you want to use the lens, not some absolute rule. If my 100-400 was only f/6.3 at 300 I couldn't care less and would still be using it.
Cheers
TitusvileSurfer
New member
I'll give you that, but I rarely (999/1000) shoot smaller than f/5.6 with telephoto. That lens isn't even capable of shooting smaller than f/5.6.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
*wider, not smaller -_-
xtm
Active member
What is your budget?
The best Micro Nikkor is the 200 f/4 in terms of working distance, but it's also $1700 and hard to find. The 105 VR is good, but still expensive for what it is (IMO). When shooting macros you basically have no use for its VR and AF-S since you will be on tripod and manual focusing all the time. The best bang for the buck IMO is the Tamron 90 at $350. If you want a longer working distance, the Sigma 150 2.8 ($700) is a great lens that has been getting rave reviews. Now if you HAVE to have a Nikkor, I suggest the older 105 2.8 (Not AFS and no VR) it's just as good as the new 105 VR but only cost around $350 used. You can find these at KEH.
imisky
New member
im using the sigma 150mm f2.8 on my canon and its a great lens. as mentioned earlier most times you work with macros you will be on a tripod so the addition of VR will not add much to the picture (theres arguements that VR could make images less sharp on a tripod but i wont get into that here). IMO it depends on what you want to use the lens for, if its only for aquarium use anything above 90mm becomes useless as no tank is that deep.
