Which lens?

[Mogie]

After borrowing my friends Nikon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5f to try some insect Macro shots I desperately want to continue shooting Macro. I'm considering buying the same lens as it worked brilliantly with my camera (Nikon D300) and I was impressed with image quality. Ideally I would like to be able to get in a bit closer. Would people advise a different lens altogether or to buy the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5f and attach magnifiers to the front? I don't have the money to spend much more than £200 at the moment. Think that works out around $320 USD. Can anyone offer any words of wisdom here?

[Pau]

If you plan to go more seriously into the macro field, I only would recommend a dedicated prime macro lens. The image quality will be beter than the zoom, and you will be able to go to 1:2 or in most models to 1:1 without accesories and to higher magnification with extension tubes or close up lenses. The micro-nikkors are excellent, and other third party lenses like sigma or tamron too. New it may be more expensive than $320, but in the used market you perhaps can find good offers.

[NikonUser]

I agree with Pau.
The older Nikon 105 micro is a great lens, you should be able to get a secondhand one with your budget.
I use it for almost all my bug images
EXAMPLE HERE
works to one-half life size; with extension tubes or bellows can get quite higjh magnification.

[DaveW]

Generally speaking zooms do not produce as good image quality as fixed focal length lenses, though you may not see the difference for Web use or viewing on a computer screen, only when printing out. So called macro zooms are really only a normal zoom with a close focus facility, if it is a zoom therefore it is not a true macro lens since nowadays these are all fixed focal lengths.

As others have said a dedicated macro lens is best since this is computed for close up work, unlike general photographic lenses and macro zooms that are computed for infinity. But it really depends how seriously you wish to get into macro photography as with supplementary lenses or extension tubes you can get close with most lenses with varying degrees of image quality.

Not sure you will get a true modern macro lens secondhand for your D300 for £200 though, perhaps one of the old fully manual Micro Nikkor's off EBAY, though the 28-105 is possible at that price. Only you can decide whether you need a lens now or wait until you have saved up a bit longer.

I found this on the Web that may interest you:-

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/Gu ... 5lens.html

DaveW

[Craig Gerard]

Raynox Macro Conversion lenses:

http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/digital ... index.html

Craig

[Mogie]

Ok some real food for thought here. I'll have a bit more of a look around before I buy anything.

Appreciate all the help!

Mogie

[DaveW]

Mogie,

I have a D200 and as long as you get at least a "D" type lens introduced in 1992 which conveys distance information to the camera, or newer lens versions onwards they will retain all the automation of your D300.

I use both the 60mm f2.8D Micro Nikkor and the 70mm-180mm Micro Nikkor (no longer made and the only zoom that was optimised for close up work rather than infinity). Both are full frame lenses and work beautifully on the APS-C format cameras. In fact I only have one "G" lens for normal photography and no VR ones.

For Nikon lens versions see:-

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

DaveW

[Mogie]

Cheers Dave, think I'm coming closer to a decision. I have my eye on this lens

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-105mm-Mac ... 444&sr=8-1

I would rather go for the Nikon version but the Sigma is already a bit above my budget and the Nikon is a good £200 quid above the Sigma. I'm going to keep looking around for a second hand Nikon lens until next payday. If I don't find one by then I'll pick up the Sigma. Unless anyone thinks that's a really bad idea? I have a Sigma wideangle and that seems to work nicely with my Nikon.

Thanks again

James

[DaveW]

Reviews here:-

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma ... Macro-4587

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a ... rt--review

DaveW

[Mogie]

Very helpful reviews. Think they've made my mind up for me. (now to convince my girlfriend I should spend nearly £400 on a lens)

Thanks
Mogie

[sonyalpha]

Reviews here:-

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma ... Macro-4587

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a ... rt--review

DaveW

Hi, Mogie

A good choice:

But one thing to consider before you go ahead.............if you are in the UK winter will arrive all too quickly and for a new Macro-shooter with a brand new and expensive lens it will prove to be a very frustrating time because most creepy crawlies will be hiding, hibernating or even dead:

Might be a better idea to trickle-save ........and......put strong hints out that you would like money for Christmas......by the time the weather and the insects warm up again you will have the dosh....plus a happy girlfriend:

sonyalpha

[Mogie]

I like your thinking and was considering something along those lines. I was however looking forward to some frost / ice or snow shots over winter with a Macro.

[Harold Gough]

(now to convince my girlfriend I should spend nearly £400 on a lens)

Your account of that should be interesting. Maybe you should first spend at least £401 on her?

Harold

[Craig Gerard]

Mogie,

Which lense or lenses do you currently have in your kit?

Craig