My nephew got his first DSLR, a Nikon DX entry level, and he wants to buy a macro lens to begin doing macro (more likely as general and close up lens).
He has put an eye in the Micro Nikon 40 f2.8 af-s dx and to the Tamron 90mm f/2.8Di 1:1 VC.
I know that there are other alternatives like the Micro Nikon 60 or the Sigma different models.
I lean towards recommend him a 90 to 105 lens because longer working distance and because it will also acts as a short telephoto.
Any recommendations for a pretty limited budget?
Macro lens for beginner
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
I think in the 100mm range, the current options from nikon, sigma, tamron and tokina are quite similar quality wise with details better or worse here and there. These were my thoughts when i had to decide:
The Nikon are quite pricy compared to the rest. No flaws apart from that and well, its nikon.
Tokina needs an af-motor in the camera and sometimes they have quite some CAs, no image stabilization.
The Sigmas seem to have no flaws at a better price than nikon.
The same goes for Tamrons.
I first had a used copy of the tokina, but sold it due to CAs and missing image stabilization. I think at that focal length IS is really a great feature.
Now im very happy with a new Tamron, the latest version F017, which has a bunch of small improvments over its predecessor. I love the new design/manufacturing which is very similar to the sigma art line. they claim that the IS is better in macro situations than the competiotion because they compensate not only for rotation but also for translation, which is more important closeup. AF is very fast for a macro lens which was important for me as i used most of the time as a regular tele lens.
Going shorter in focal length brings reduced working distance and more problems with illumination. But I think it also has an advantage when shooting macro handhold: as you are much closer to the subject, it is easier to aim and keep the image still.
I also got a tokina 35/2,8 macro very cheap which i wanted for the different fov and i love that lens. Still the Tamron is far more odmften on the camera.
I think if the budget is tight and you look for the most for the money, i would go for a used sigma or tamron ~100mm with image stabilization.
The Nikon are quite pricy compared to the rest. No flaws apart from that and well, its nikon.
Tokina needs an af-motor in the camera and sometimes they have quite some CAs, no image stabilization.
The Sigmas seem to have no flaws at a better price than nikon.
The same goes for Tamrons.
I first had a used copy of the tokina, but sold it due to CAs and missing image stabilization. I think at that focal length IS is really a great feature.
Now im very happy with a new Tamron, the latest version F017, which has a bunch of small improvments over its predecessor. I love the new design/manufacturing which is very similar to the sigma art line. they claim that the IS is better in macro situations than the competiotion because they compensate not only for rotation but also for translation, which is more important closeup. AF is very fast for a macro lens which was important for me as i used most of the time as a regular tele lens.
Going shorter in focal length brings reduced working distance and more problems with illumination. But I think it also has an advantage when shooting macro handhold: as you are much closer to the subject, it is easier to aim and keep the image still.
I also got a tokina 35/2,8 macro very cheap which i wanted for the different fov and i love that lens. Still the Tamron is far more odmften on the camera.
I think if the budget is tight and you look for the most for the money, i would go for a used sigma or tamron ~100mm with image stabilization.
-
- Posts: 3416
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
Thanks avogra!
I have no experience with none of those lenses, so your thoughts are much appreciated
I always have a Canon compact macro 50mm and a tube at the photo bag and I find it very useful while traveling or hiking. At the studio I use other equipment.
Later, if he was really bitten with the macro venom I can let him more specific advice, even loan him some manual macro stuff
I have no experience with none of those lenses, so your thoughts are much appreciated
I really would agree if we were talking about true macrophotography, but my nephew is a just a beginner in photography and a traditional lens seems much easier to work with and more versatile for general photography.ray_parkhurst wrote:Macro is almost always best done manually, and beginning photographers (of all types) should always start with manual lenses to learn how things work
I always have a Canon compact macro 50mm and a tube at the photo bag and I find it very useful while traveling or hiking. At the studio I use other equipment.
Later, if he was really bitten with the macro venom I can let him more specific advice, even loan him some manual macro stuff
Pau
-
- Posts: 3416
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional". Photography has been around for 175 years or so, yet AF lenses have only been around for the last 35 of those 175. Seems the most "traditional" lens is indeed a manual focus one. Every serious photographer I know learned to shoot on MF cameras. I also know quite a few younger folks who learned to shoot on point and shoots, and even more that learned on cellphones. None of them have any concept of depth of field, aperture, ISO/Sensitivity, or shutter speed. They are usually pretty good at composition, and indeed not having to worry about how the camera works does free them up to concentrate on taking pictures.Pau wrote:...my nephew is a just a beginner in photography and a traditional lens seems much easier to work with and more versatile for general photography
Well, conventional wold be a more adequate word than traditional.
As I suggested I basically agree with you, I did my first "macros" about 43yrs ago not only without any automatism but even lacking a selenium photometer, calculating (guessing) the exposure by eye, so I'm an old school photographer.
But my nephew's situation is clearly different and also his interests, I think. If eventually he ends seriously interested in macro (or in general photography) he will be more motivated to learn the basic principles.
Thanks for the follow-up
As I suggested I basically agree with you, I did my first "macros" about 43yrs ago not only without any automatism but even lacking a selenium photometer, calculating (guessing) the exposure by eye, so I'm an old school photographer.
But my nephew's situation is clearly different and also his interests, I think. If eventually he ends seriously interested in macro (or in general photography) he will be more motivated to learn the basic principles.
Thanks for the follow-up
Pau
Tamron 90mm f/2.8Di 1:1 VC seems to be a $420 USD used? That budget is not too limited in my eyes
Maybe get an auto telephoto lens and put Raynox DCR-150 over it? Good working distance in that case and dirt cheap ($55 shipped US for the Raynox). Easy to resell, if that does not work. Auto focus may not work very well at closest focus, but it may work reasonably a little backed off.
Most people who likes nature needs a telephoto anyway. And it should be easy to resell too. So not much to lose there.
Manual macro lenses can be cheap too. I do like my $50 USD Schneider Componon S 50mm F/2.8 reversed/extended mounted on my micro 4/3. Its working distance is likely between 50% -70% of the Raynox DCR-150 + telephoto, at the same magnification.
I am beginner in shooting macro and did not find manual lenses too difficult. Flash and diffusion helps a lot. Serious photographers eventually need to learn manual lenses anyway?
Maybe get an auto telephoto lens and put Raynox DCR-150 over it? Good working distance in that case and dirt cheap ($55 shipped US for the Raynox). Easy to resell, if that does not work. Auto focus may not work very well at closest focus, but it may work reasonably a little backed off.
Most people who likes nature needs a telephoto anyway. And it should be easy to resell too. So not much to lose there.
Manual macro lenses can be cheap too. I do like my $50 USD Schneider Componon S 50mm F/2.8 reversed/extended mounted on my micro 4/3. Its working distance is likely between 50% -70% of the Raynox DCR-150 + telephoto, at the same magnification.
I am beginner in shooting macro and did not find manual lenses too difficult. Flash and diffusion helps a lot. Serious photographers eventually need to learn manual lenses anyway?
Selling my Canon FD 200mm F/2.8 lens
With the Nikon digital SLRs you have the option of using the older AI Micro Nikkors, namely the 55mm and105mm which are pretty fast at f2.8 and are extremely well corrected. They can be had for very little, considering how good they are. They cover full frame on FX, but work well on DX where they behave like longer focal length lenses, and they have dedicated extension rings that get them down to nearly 1:1. Of course you can put them on bellows and go up from there. You'll have to manually focus, meter, and stop down, but on most of the Pro camera bodies, you can program the non-CPU lens and link the AI aperture to the camera meter and that works very easily and well, just like in the old days..
The main reason I stayed with Nikon when I went into digital was the ability to use all the old AI Nikkors, which are optically at least as good and usually better than the new AF lenses, and available at bargain basement prices because most folks using digital AF cameras don't know how good these old lenses are.
The main reason I stayed with Nikon when I went into digital was the ability to use all the old AI Nikkors, which are optically at least as good and usually better than the new AF lenses, and available at bargain basement prices because most folks using digital AF cameras don't know how good these old lenses are.
Man sieht nur, was man weiss--Goethe
-
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
- Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.
I'm a Canon user, but I've been extremely happy with my Tokina 100mm macro.
At the time I bought it (around three years ago), it was the best value in a macro lens which I could find.
I use this lens almost exclusively in manual mode, as my subjects tend to be (80%) small objects in the studio and (20%) small nocturnal spiders , neither of which are really amenable to autofocus.
I doubt you'll be disappointed with the Tokina.
At the time I bought it (around three years ago), it was the best value in a macro lens which I could find.
I use this lens almost exclusively in manual mode, as my subjects tend to be (80%) small objects in the studio and (20%) small nocturnal spiders , neither of which are really amenable to autofocus.
I doubt you'll be disappointed with the Tokina.