Options
Found: A good macro lens for my D7000
Cambyses
Registered Users Posts: 141 Major grins
Looking for a 1:1 90-100mm macro lens for my D7000. Still not quite decided which one I want to buy, but would certainly consider a good deal on a used, but in excellent condition, version of any of the following:
1) Nikkor AF-S VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED (preferably the made in Japan version)
2) Nikkor AF-D Micro 105mm f/2.8
3) Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X AF M100 Pro-D
4) Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF Di
5) Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG
Here are the prices I could find online:
1) New: ~$950, Used: ~$800
2) Used: ~$450
3) New: ~$450
4) New: ~$400 (after $50 rebate)
5) New: ~$470
If you have any of these in good condition, and you want to get rid of it, please drop me a message. Thanks!
1) Nikkor AF-S VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED (preferably the made in Japan version)
2) Nikkor AF-D Micro 105mm f/2.8
3) Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X AF M100 Pro-D
4) Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP AF Di
5) Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG
Here are the prices I could find online:
1) New: ~$950, Used: ~$800
2) Used: ~$450
3) New: ~$450
4) New: ~$400 (after $50 rebate)
5) New: ~$470
If you have any of these in good condition, and you want to get rid of it, please drop me a message. Thanks!
0
Comments
So many good review, you just cant go wrong....
But also consider, no one selling the tamron 90, once they buy it.....
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
In my opinion, the one big factor in favor of Nikkor 105 VR is its Internal Focusing system, which I think is unique among all these lenses, and could be helpful in macro shots. Also its VR for non-macro portrait shots. But I am not sure if IF and VR is worth spending twice as much.
Much cheaper than any new AF glass and IMPO renders well. All you would need to master is the focus. (it's easy)
You can see some of my MF 105/4 samples HERE.
Macro is definitely best at MF. I don't know what your budget is, but you can easily find older Nikkor-Micros on eBay. AF is pretty irrelevant.
Proofing: clients.captured-photos.com
Facebook: Like Me || Twitter: Follow Me
Gear: Lots of Nikon bodies & glass, an office full of tools and toys
But it's a prime 105 and I can tell you that primes always render (IMPO) better than a zoom, macro or not.
There's a bunch of math involved... but primes are engineered to work the best they can right outta the box. Zooms, on the other hand, have to work thru their whole range and there are often engineered compromises needed so they work "ok" throughout the whole zoom range. Usually zooms suffer (minimal maybe) on either extreme and are the best in the middle of the zoom range.
If you really want 1:1, or better, there are extension rings that can get you there without loss of IQ. After all, the 1:1 is just a number. What really matters is the IQ and how your client sees the images you've created. They don't care about 1:1, they just want quality and you may find primes are the way to go for this.
OH, and the MF Micro-Nikkor will cost much less $$$ than any new AF glass, along with the fact they are no longer made and as the supply dwindles, based on demand you could feesably sell it for more than you paid. Just something else to add to the equation. YMMV...
As far as MF goes, the hardest place I've found to use MF is in sporting events with moving subjects. Portrait shots have minimal movement, so I can see the Micro-105 MF lens in this setting. No issues IMPO... (yet)
And why are you so set looking for a macro that will do 1:1? What your need in this regard?
But the reason I prefer 1:1 is based on the macro shots I have taken with my Sigma 70-300 APO with and without a Canon 500D closeup attached. Without 500D, I get 1:2, and with it, I get close to 1:1, and I have come across many macro subjects where I have found the extra magnification quite useful. And by getting a 1:1 lens, I hopefully will need extension tubes (which cost light and working distance anyway, not to mention inconvenience) in fewer occasions.
And all that said, I checked the prices on Nikkor 105 AI-S again, and they seem to go for around ~$250; so not that cheap when you compare with, say, a new Tamron 90 AF at ~$400.
Thanks again for taking the time and providing your input...
The light loss with EXT tubes is negligible since there is no glass and they only push out in milimeters. Every piece of glass between your subject and the sensor provides for light loss, but not w/EXT tubes. They just push the lens away from the sensor and I know of very few with glass in them. I suspect you're referring to a TC (teleconverter) which always have glass and the 500D also has glass, hence the light loss...
Also, with the longer focal lengths you don't have to be "in your face" as far as your subject goes. I have the AF Nikkor 60/2.8 (yep, 1:1) but find that it's not long enough for many subjects and they want to exit ASAP. It's also dis-concerning for living things when this big black object is staring them in the face. I've also had the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 (1:1) and this is even more "in your face" being it's even wider than the 60.
Ummmmmmmmmmm... the MF 105 is still cheaper than anything you listed and you don't get "quality" cheap these days anyhow. If you want cheap, reminder... you often get what you pay for in this industry. Rare exceptions excluded. And you're welcome...
My final thoughts... if you want a longer macro I think you'll find the Micro-Nikkor 105/4 is a hard lens to beat for IQ, build quality and cost. The Micro-Nikkor 200/4 (2:1) is just a 1/2 IQ step down (IMPO) from the 105/4 if you need even longer FL.
Just a note on light loss. I was not referring to TC. Even though extension tubes have no glass, just because they push the lens glass further away from the sensor plane, they do cause light loss. And the light loss may not always be negligible. The effect is similar to the one that causes smaller effective aperture at max magnification in macro lenses (e.g., a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 would only have f/5.6 effective aperture in max magnification). You can see the math here: http://www.peterforsell.com/macro.html#7._Light_loss , and its example shows how adding 72mm extension to Nikkor 105 AI-S would cause 1.5 stop loss in light while increasing the magnification from 1:2 to about 1.2:1.
All that said, you have actually convinced me to look more seriously into Nikon 105mm AI-S.Will be watching it over Ebay and other places. Thanks for making me even more undecided as I was when I started this thread!
You're welcome...
Moderator -- WTB may be changed to Found in the subject of this thread. Thx.