Economical Nikon fit Macro recommendations....
Discussion
Are you on full frame or DX?
The Nikon shorter prime macro lenses have very good reviews and are really cheap, albeit only for DX sensors - eg. Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8
If you are on FX then the Tamron is the way to go. I'd look for the newer version of the 90mm with VC, since it's only about £40 more expensive and the optics are much better apparently.
The Nikon shorter prime macro lenses have very good reviews and are really cheap, albeit only for DX sensors - eg. Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8
If you are on FX then the Tamron is the way to go. I'd look for the newer version of the 90mm with VC, since it's only about £40 more expensive and the optics are much better apparently.
You can find a 55mm micro Nikkor with manual focus s/h for less than £100. Or a similar 105mm for about £150+. Two of the best optics ever built.
It depends in part on how close you expect to get to your subject. With a 55mm you can sometimes find yourself getting tangled up with things close to the subject, with a 105mm you can step back a little and avoid a few problems.
It depends in part on how close you expect to get to your subject. With a 55mm you can sometimes find yourself getting tangled up with things close to the subject, with a 105mm you can step back a little and avoid a few problems.
Mr Snap said:
You can find a 55mm micro Nikkor with manual focus s/h for less than £100. Or a similar 105mm for about £150+. Two of the best optics ever built.
It depends in part on how close you expect to get to your subject. With a 55mm you can sometimes find yourself getting tangled up with things close to the subject, with a 105mm you can step back a little and avoid a few problems.
I like idea of 100ish mm because Im aware you gain some distance. Can you give me alink to the Nikon 105 you mention please ?It depends in part on how close you expect to get to your subject. With a 55mm you can sometimes find yourself getting tangled up with things close to the subject, with a 105mm you can step back a little and avoid a few problems.
I'm looking and I can't find the 105mm old Nikkor lenses (AI-S or AF-D) versions for less than £250 or so on eBay. I'd honestly say the Tamron is a better choice - especially with a 5 year warranty.
Adding extension tubes does nothing to your focal length, just decreases your minimum focus distance (with a 40mm lens this is really close anyway).
Adding extension tubes does nothing to your focal length, just decreases your minimum focus distance (with a 40mm lens this is really close anyway).
Turn7 said:
I like idea of 100ish mm because Im aware you gain some distance. Can you give me alink to the Nikon 105 you mention please ?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105mm-f4.htmThere are two versions to look for, an f/4 or an f/2.8. Obviously the f/2.8 commands better prices. In many circumstances, shooting macro, manual focus is preferable it's also sometime easier to move the camera rather than the lens). Shop around, be prepared to wait a bit and you'll find a well priced one.
Also remember that, if your shooting macro at f/2.8 the DoF is wafer thin. F/4 might give you an extra millimetre or two, which is a big deal at such close distances. Ok, the viewfinder is a bit darker but...
Fleabay….
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/171190806195?limghl...
I have a Nikon 105mm f2.8 AF-D which I liberated from a fellow PHer. Here's one on eBay for £194: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/291147827620?limghl...
It's not AF-S or VR but at that price it's not a dealbreaker.
It's not AF-S or VR but at that price it's not a dealbreaker.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff