Recommend me a macro lens.

[Helen]

Hi all,

Now in possession of my D70s and starting to look at lenses. Can anybody recommend a macro lens (for above water) that will give me nice photos but not super expensive? Have been told to get a sigma lens by a friend. Any thoughts?

Thanks
Helen

[KenByrne]

That's a really tough question.

For underwater I always recommended the Sigma 50mm, which I have. But now Nikon have announced a new 60mm macro which looks brilliant but is pricey the cost of the old Nikon 60mm has dropped so that it is only slightly more than the Sigma.

For surface use a better lens is probably the 105mm Macro as it gives more working distance. This lens is also popular underwater but less so in the UK where the conditions make the closer working distance of the 50/60 mm lenses a real benefit.

The Sigma 105mm gets good reviews and is about 1/2 the price of the Nikon, although the Nikon does have VR.

I recently bought a Tamron 90mm as I thought the slightly shorter working distance than the 105mm would be an advantage. This lens gets very good reviews and I'm very pleased with it so far.

I've used Warehouse Express for cameras and lenses in the past and had no complaints. Their prices seem competitive. This page lists the Nikon macro lenses and prices so you can get an idea of what is available.

Cameras & Lenses - Lenses - Nikon Fit - Warehouse Express

[Cussy]

I have both the 50mm and 105mm Sigma macro lenses, both fantastic.

As an alternative, don't you have the 18-70? Wouldn't a diopter convert this into a decent macro lens? That would save weight if this is for travelling.
Rob

[Mike W]

Another vote for the 105 (90) focal length. Not only will you get excellent close-ups but you also get a fast ( f2.8 ) telephoto, equivalent to 150mm-ish on your D70, and very good optics, the focal length is a standard that has been around and refined for years.

I have the Sigma 105 and it's superb. Optically the tests I've seen rank it with the much more expensive marque lenses, albeit the focusing can be slower and noisier.

Topside I can't see any reason to favour the 50 over the 105, and lots of reasons for going for the 105 over the 50. Underwater, if you want to shoot macro stuff, I still can't see a reason to go for the shorter lens, even in UK waters - BUT, if you also want it to double as a fish-portrait lens (As most of us, me included, do), the 105 is too long in turbid green water, mine is on the limit for larger fish even in clear blue water. Of course there are also those using even longer focal lengths......

Bottom line, sooner or later you're going to really need both a 105mm and a 50mm, and probably a 200mm as well...

[DDT uk]

I have the Nikon 60mm, Tamron 90mm, and Sigma 105mm. Topside the Nikon never gets used. The tamron and sigma are both far more useful as well as being quicker and more accurate to focus. Shooting butterflies with a 60mm is far more difficult that with a 90 or 105.

Given a choice between the Tamron and Sigma and I would probably go for the 105 but only if there was no price differential. I would certainly be happy with either.

Daniel

[Cussy]

Although I did suggest the diopter (just for cheapness and weight), I think the difference in quality you get between a primary and zoom lens is huge. I love my 18-200VR, but if I want absolute crispness it cant beat the 105. I got my 105 reconditioned and it cost about £200 - absolutely like new.
Rob

[Cerianthus]

I would second the use of a 100mm -ish macrolense for topsite. If I wouldve used it only topside, I would have gone for the Tamron 90mm, because of the very nice reviews. Because the canon variety doesnt change lenght, it seemed more usefull under water. Optically, all macro lenses in that range are good.

If you need the 50-60mm range to take piortraits of people, you can also pick up a 50mm standard lens cheaply. Dont know the nikon equivalent, but the canon 50mm f1.8 cost only 100-110 euros new.

[Helen]

Thanks for that all. Good food for thought. So I'm looking at about £270 for the sigma lens. Alternatively the dipoter filter that was mentioned, is this the right thing?

Hoya 52mm Macro Close-up +10 diopter Filter Huge Stocks in UK.

I know the results prob wouldnt be anywhere near as good with this but is a lot cheaper so might be ok for a start.


Thanks again
Helen

[Cussy]

Helen,
The answer sort of depends on what you want the macro lens for. I would have thought that the macro lens you linked to would be as good as the macro on a compact. The difference in quality you get between a zoom lens and a primary can be subjective, but in most instances I can guess what lens was used for my photos without looking at the EXIF (the 70-300 is very obvious). My 105 and 50 are superior to my 18-200 for when I want the quality, but rarely get used as the flexibility of the zoom out-weighs the quality most of the time.

As I found out last year, frequently changing lenses can also have a big downside. I went to Blenhelm Palace on a fantastic sunny day. I had the polarising filter with me, so the shots were great. About a quarter into the day I changed lens for two or three shots and went back to the 18-200. During the change I got a spec of dust on the sensor which has ruined some of the best top-side shots I've ever taken!! A valuable learning experience and an auto cleaner is the only thing I can see worth upgrading the D80.

Be careful with filter sizes. If you bought more than one lens get the macro for at least the bigger of the two and attach it to the other with a stepper ring (I made that mistake with the polariser, which for your African trip I would highly recommend).
Rob

[Cerianthus]

Helen, dont use/buy the +10 diopter. That is way too strong. |the good thing is that it is a two element diopter. I bought the 250D and 500D canon diopters (+2 and +4). They dont fit on my standard lens, but fit on the standard zoom. I can try some test shots for you tonight but dont have time now (if I remember i'm off to the clubhouse to watch the rugby this afternoon)

this shot was with a single element diopter and the 50mm f1.8: (aquarium shot)

you can clearly see the very strange depth of field (sharpness loss in the corners). that doenst happen as much with the two element ones...