lens help

gracenrich

:rofl Would like opinions on the Tokina atx 100 pro d
and the Nikon 60mm .
Budget about $400.00
Any recommendations appreciated.
Thank You

Aussieroo

It is difficult to make a recomendation as everyones needs and budgets are different. It is true that eventually as your skills develope you will become frustrated with the lower end lenses and crave to upgrade to better glass for better esults. However at the beginning I also restricted my budget till I could justify some of the better/best gear. So what I suggest is you look around at the results different lenses achieve on your camera in different forums by doing a search. Compare various lenses on sites like this one

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

It is a school of thouight to train on less expensive gear and upgrade as you improve and you see you are passionate about that form or photography but it is also a school of thought to buy the best you can afford up front and do your learning on thebest to avoid the frustration that will come when you get to a certain point in your learning process. We are all limited to some degree as to what we can afford and justify buying and you know best where you are in that scale.

The best advice however is just do it and get out practicing and enjoy! Good luck with your decision making.

Umax

I've had the Tokina for about 9 months and it is a top performer. I've added the Nikon macro flash kit, RC-1 I think is the model and has opened another world. The lens is top notch.

Lord Vetinari

One odd thing about macro lenses from major manufacturers is that they are all optically excellent - they may vary in AF but as you should use MF for macro that does not matter. I still use a lowly sigma 105mm for my 1:1 or less shooting and am perfectly happy. Heard the same from Tokina snd Tamron macro lens owners. Any differences you may see in photos from the different lenses are down to variations in the owners not the lenses.

brian V.

steplim

I seconded what Brian said. I am still using the Sigma 105mm basic 1:1 macro lense and still give reasonably good result. I like what Brian said about quality; it is person behind it and not the lense since you using MF almost all the time.
The reasons I think that set them apart are the min. focus distance and telephoto reach where 180 comes in handy.

Icebear

Lord Vetinari wrote:

I still use a lowly sigma 105mm for my 1:1 or less shooting and am perfectly happy.

I was dead set on the 105 Nikkor VR 'till I saw that Brian used the Sigma. Then I read the reviews on the Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Nikon, and was amazed at how little qualitative difference there was in terms of optical performance. I love my Nikkor lenses and my Tokina 12-24, but think I'll go with the Sigma for my macro lens choice.

Thanks for saving me a few hundred U$, Brian!

Lord Vetinari

Icebear wrote:

I was dead set on the 105 Nikkor VR 'till I saw that Brian used the Sigma. Then I read the reviews on the Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Nikon, and was amazed at how little qualitative difference there was in terms of optical performance. I love my Nikkor lenses and my Tokina 12-24, but think I'll go with the Sigma for my macro lens choice.

Thanks for saving me a few hundred U$, Brian!

No probs - although I think the Nikkor 105 is the only macro lens I've seen that does have a slight but significant edge on the rest in absolute resolving power. Whether that shows up in practice is another matter and why they put in the added cost of VR in a macro lens I'll never understand (you have to turn it off for macro shooting).

Brian V.

Icebear

Lord Vetinari wrote:

and why they put in the added cost of VR in a macro lens I'll never understand (you have to turn it off for macro shooting).

Brian V.

Not to mention heavy!