Good budget Macro

TobiasW

First off, Hello. Joined awhile ago, and only recently started lurking around. Big fan of Smug Mug so thought I'd give this forum a go. Been taking pics for awhile, just bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D7000.

I was looking for some input on a good Macro lens. I have a 50 and 18-105mm.

Anyhow, any input would be appreciated.

Thanks
Tobias

ziggy53

It's hard to go too wrong with any true macro prime lens that does 1:1 imaging. I do appreciate the extra working distance afforded by a 100mm-ish focal length, in order to position light for the subject.

All that said, I got an older Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 Macro and I truly enjoy it. Not terribly expensive but very capable. A little slow and noisy for some general photography, but works great for the intended macro usage as well as some portraiture, landscape and stitched landscape applications.

Already sharp at f2.8, by f5.6 it is one of the sharpest lenses I own.

ZBlack

I'll second Ziggy's comments on the Tamron 90 2.8. I picked up a used one of the older model a couple months back and love it. If you haven't used a macro lens like I hadn't before getting it, having such a huge focus range is a bit strange, but awesome at the same time. Guess I should add in that I am also using this with a D7000.

photogreen

i haven't used it personally, but i heard many many good things about the mentioned Tamron 90mm

joshhuntnm

I that the kind of glass you would use to get those bug shots I see on here all the time?

TobiasW

Thanks, I'll check that one out!

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote: »

I that the kind of glass you would use to get those bug shots I see on here all the time?

If your question is about using the Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 Macro for bug photography, and lenses like it, yes, true macro lenses are often used for bugs.

Remember that we have a whole forum dedicated to macro photography:

http://dgrin.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23

Be sure to check the sticky posts at the top of the forum to get started.

paddler4

Yes, a lens in the 90-105mm range would be a good choice. I've heard good things about the Tamron but have not used it. I shoot with Canon lenses, which is no help to you. However, one thing to consider is that simply buying a macro lens may not be enough to let you do what you want. I am not a gear-head, but macro is a demanding type of photography that often requires some extra equipment. Tiny amounts of motion matter in macro. As a result, a lot of macro work is done either with a tripod (or at least a monopod) or a flash to freeze motion. Some macro is done hand-held, but you need a lot of light to do it. You don't have to spend a fortune on any of this stuff, but it is not free. There are some postings on the macro forum here about DIY flash rigs, which can be quite cheap once you have a flash.

As Ziggy suggested, check out the stickies on the macro forum. They are excellent.

basflt

before buying anything , budget or not ,
you must consider what you want to do with it first of all

if your goal is to get real close , add a set of Kenko tubes to a macro lens plus some sort of flash and your on your way
if your goal is the "bigger" subjects , like bees and flowers you just need the lens , nothing else

me . i like my Sigma 150 mm
Nikkor 105 mm is also good
IMO you can use any true macro lens you can effort


i never used a tripod for macro , its clumsy , but a flash is indeed handy and recommended for shots at or beyond 1:1

TobiasW

Thanks again for the input! Not looking for anything closer than bee's and flowers so I think just the lens will suffice. I do like the idea of a longer focal length though.

puzzledpaul

TobiasW wrote: »

... I have a 50 and 18-105mm.

Depending on how keen you are to get into macro and how much 'macro' stuff you intend doing, I'd suggest you consider getting a set of extension tubes (as previously mentioned) ... but use them with your existing lenses.

Whilst a dedicated macro lens will invariably produce sharper results, using tubes with what you have (especially @ zoom's long end) will give you a flavour of what to expect.

Whilst being pedantic re the macro term (1:1) ... whenever you see a pic of something like a (complete) dragonfly in frame, this is nothing like 1:1 ... more like 1:4 or less, depending on composition.

To fill the frame in such a manner thus allows for other lenses (with tubes generally) to be used.

A set of tubes is unlikely to be a wasted expense imo, as they can be used with a wide variety of lenses - and there's a strong market if you decide to sell 'em

pp

time2smile

check out the Tokina 100

roscowgo

Before you drop a lot of change on a dedicated macro lens, get a lens reversal ring for your 50.

With the basic 18-55 kit lens flipped around backwards. 6$ to see if you're interested is much better than a few hundred.

Icebear

I've used the Tamron 90 for ages. Not only is it a superb macro lens, it is wonderful for portraits.

photogreen

i second that. could be worth a try.

roscowgo wrote: »

Before you drop a lot of change on a dedicated macro lens, get a lens reversal ring for your 50.

With the basic 18-55 kit lens flipped around backwards. 6$ to see if you're interested is much better than a few hundred.

puzzledpaul

roscowgo wrote: »

Before you drop a lot of change on a dedicated macro lens, get a lens reversal ring for your 50.

With the basic 18-55 kit lens flipped around backwards. 6$ to see if you're interested is much better than a few hundred.

Yes, worth a try but also worth remembering the issues associated with such a setup.

A cheap reversing ring won't transfer information between the body and lens, so the aperture has to be pre-set and will stay at that setting for the taken frame.

In practice this means that you'll either have to stop down the lens to the required aperture before the shot - and have a dimmer viewfinder image - or the opposite, use the lens wide(r) open, but not have the dof you'd perhaps prefer.

In some ways - imo - an old MF lens (with aperture ring) makes life slightly easier - especially with relatively static shots, since it lets you frame wide open, then you shut down (with appropriate exposure change) for the shot.

In earlier days, I adopted this latter approach with Canon FD macro lenses attached to various digital bodies via a home-made FD/EF converter. They weren't reverse mounted, but posed similar 'problems'.

All easier on a tripod, imo

Life / workflow with a 'proper' macro lens (or std lens + tubes) is much easier however.

pp