New Macro Lens...

[remus_lupin]

Hey all, I am looking for a macro lens for my Nikon D90... I have tried looking around and have found a few reviews and what not but I was wondering what the best choice was for a macro lens... I am currently leaning towards the 105mm f/2.8 micro from Nikon... (I'd prefer an FX type lens so that I can use it whenever I decide to upgrade to an FX body).... anyway I was just wondering what the BEST macro lens is that is usable on my camera for a price under $1500 CAD... thanks in advance!

also if you could give some reasons as to why one lens would be a better choice than another....

[Argote]

The 105 might be the best one to consider for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-105mm-2-8G-ED-IF-Micro-Nikkor/dp/B000EOSHGQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269740341&sr=8-1

Also check these out:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150mm-Macro-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B00063KO5C/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269740341&sr=8-9

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-2-8-Di/dp/B00021EE4U/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1269740341&sr=8-7

[remus_lupin]

Yeah I was looking at the Sigma 150mm... do you think it's worth getting that one over the Nikon just because I am considering using it for portraits here and there...

[Argote]

Yeah I was looking at the Sigma 150mm... do you think it's worth getting that one over the Nikon just because I am considering using it for portraits here and there...

Well, the VR helps a lot with Macro from what I've heard and 105mm is OK for portraits I guess., the Sigma is a nice choice too.

[Andre]

All true macro lenses are good, be it from Sigma, Tamron, Nikon or Canon. Canon and Nikon are the only ones that offers stabilisation, but to be frank I don't think you have any use of that at macro level. When you shoot macro you are working with f/11 or larger to get large DOF. Which means you have to have enough light in order to shoot at 1/250 or faster. Surely, IS/VR does help if you are shooting normal stuff, but then again, learning to hold your gear steady will help a lot in the first place. :)

[Argote]

All true macro lenses are good, be it from Sigma, Tamron, Nikon or Canon. Canon and Nikon are the only ones that offers stabilisation, but to be frank I don't think you have any use of that at macro level. When you shoot macro you are working with f/11 or larger to get large DOF. Which means you have to have enough light in order to shoot at 1/250 or faster. Surely, IS/VR does help if you are shooting normal stuff, but then again, learning to hold your gear steady will help a lot in the first place. :)

OK, yes I do agree that good macro will most likely require a tripod regardless of if you have stabilization or not (as at that level movements in more axises become significant).

[Mekun]

I bought the sigma 150mm, great lens. Really sharp. If your doing real close or long wide shots a tripod is the way to go anyways.

Here is one shot, not the greatest but still raining a lot here so i get out when i can.

[Argote]

I bought the sigma 150mm, great lens. Really sharp. If your doing real close or long wide shots a tripod is the way to go anyways.

Here is one shot, not the greatest but still raining a lot here so i get out when i can. http://www.flickr.co...N05/4472904128/

COuld you share any 1:1 samples? Also, why does it say max aperture value is 3.2 on Flickr EXIF?

[Andre]

When you approach 1:1 level on any macro lens, the aperture ring starts shifting away from the sensor resulting in a smaller maximum aperture.

[crazzy88ss]

so then a fixed f2.8 isn't truly "fixed?" How does that work?

[xplatinum]

This might help you decide.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/closer_and_closer/discuss/72157608365823831/

http://www.dpnotes.com/sigma-150mm-macro-for-nikon/

[remus_lupin]

Thanks all, I have been reading all the comments whenever I can and then I went through the links xplatinum suggested and they were a great help. I have decided. Nikon it is... I will probably pick it up sometime in May!!!

[Mekun]

Not sure where to put up 1:1 shots as they are 4288x2848, most places wont host pics that big. I havent a real chance to use the lens much because its been raining most of the time.

Auto focus is not really any good because it breaths like a runner if your trying to focus on a small subject.

[Andre]

so then a fixed f2.8 isn't truly "fixed?" How does that work?

A simple explanation is that the internals, along with the aperture blades, move when you get closer to 1:1 ratio. They move so noticeably (unlike normal lens) that at 1:1 the aperture appears to be smaller, which it does because it has been moved further into the lens and probably is also getting affected by the magnification of the glass elements in front of it (looks like it anyway). However the physical aperture size did NOT change at all, only the read out on the camera. Has something to do with camera compensating for diminished light transmission. On my Sigma I lose 1 1/3 stop of light at maximum aperture, which is not bad. As for the DOF, it remains the same, even if the camera says 5.6 when the lens is at 3.5. You still get the DOF of 3.5.

Not sure where to put up 1:1 shots as they are 4288x2848, most places wont host pics that big. I havent a real chance to use the lens much because its been raining most of the time.Auto focus is not really any good because it breaths like a runner if your trying to focus on a small subject.

Use flickr. From there you can use a medium sized format linking to larger image. But please don't post the actual 4288x2848. It's an overkill. Also, 1:1 does not mean you have to post the actual image that your camera poops out. It is simply a ratio between a real life subject and camera sensor or film. But I am sure you knew that already. :p

In my case 1:1 is 36mm, which is the width of the sensor.

[crazzy88ss]

hm, odd. thanks for the info.