What Nikon macro lens?

armatage

armatage

armatage

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,346
Location
Behind the bike shed
I currently have a Nikon D3100 and will be replacing it next year with a D5100.

I'm going to be buying a macro lens for myself for Christmas and have decided to stick with Nikon and therefore have 4 choices but cannot decide: -

1 Nikon Micro-Nikkor Macro lens - 105 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F (£600 ish)
2 Nikon Micro-Nikkor Macro lens - 60 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F (£400 ish)
3 Nikon Micro-Nikkor Macro lens - 85 mm - F/3.5 - Nikon F (£350 ish)
4 Nikon 40mm f2.8 G AF-S DX Micro Lens (£250 ish)

I could squeeze to £600 if I had to and buy the 105mm
I'm currently thinking of the 60mm over the 85mm because of the larger maximum apature
I've ruled out the 40mm

Currenlty thinking of thr 60mm but what advantage would the 105mm have over the 60mm?

Any help welcome please.
 
Out of interest, why are you ditching the D3100 for the D5100?


For macro I'd prefer something longer like the 105mm, you'll have to get much closer with the shorter macros and that isn't really ideal if you're shooting something like live insects.
 
Large maximum aperture makes very little difference for macro work, anything bigger than f/5.6 tends to be a little superfluous.

If you want the aperture for portraiture work, f/2.8 on a short crop lens isn't really great. Also I'm not sure as I'm slightly rusty on Nikon gear, but I think some of those lenses won't autofocus on your D3100, or on the D5100 you plan to replace it with.
 
Ksanti said:
Large maximum aperture makes very little difference for macro work, anything bigger than f/5.6 tends to be a little superfluous.
Click to expand...

The large maximum aperture will make for a brighter viewfinder and permit autofocus should you want it. Further, if you're going to use add teleconverters or extension tubes it's going to cost you light. At macro lengths the true aperture decreases too (since the notional aperture is measured with the lens focused to infinity).
 
They'll all autofocus if they're the current versions. I suspect the OP just hasn't given the full descriptions to let us confirm this.
 
Last edited:
armatage said:
I currently have a Nikon D3100 and will be replacing it next year with a D5100.

I'm going to be buying a macro lens for myself for Christmas and have decided to stick with Nikon and therefore have 4 choices but cannot decide: -

1 Nikon Micro-Nikkor Macro lens - 105 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F (£600 ish)
2 Nikon Micro-Nikkor Macro lens - 60 mm - F/2.8 - Nikon F (£400 ish)
3 Nikon Micro-Nikkor Macro lens - 85 mm - F/3.5 - Nikon F (£350 ish)
4 Nikon 40mm f2.8 G AF-S DX Micro Lens (£250 ish)

I could squeeze to £600 if I had to and buy the 105mm
I'm currently thinking of the 60mm over the 85mm because of the larger maximum apature
I've ruled out the 40mm

Currenlty thinking of thr 60mm but what advantage would the 105mm have over the 60mm?

Any help welcome please.
Click to expand...
The important choice here is what do you want to photograph? The 40mm and 60mm Macros are good for flowers, copywork, still life. But for insects you want more working distance, in whcih case I would look at the 105mm.
You could also consider the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro HSM (there is a new one with VR, OS in Sigma terms, but quite a lot more money).. The Sigma 150mm is less than 600GBP and has stellar performance and agreat working distance while still be fast 2.8. The downside is the heavier weight, and bear in miond that the longer working distance can make it very hard to get a steady shot. The Sigma 150 acts as a good fast moderate telephoto or portrait lens (head shots), but the focus will be too slow for sports and fast animals.

VR in a macro lens is not that useful, it is not effective at high magnifications, ei.e. macro scenarios, and in any case a good solid tripod is an absolute must. One must realise the DoF at 1:1 is wafer thin so you need the lens absolutely steady, soemthing VR/IS/OS doesn-t take care of.

Overall, the Nion 105mm is basically the best compromise of everything but doesn't sacrafiuce any image quality- it is top notch.

My advice, look at the minimum Focus distances for each lens, subtract the sensor to frotn element distance to find the working distance, and then think if that distance is enough.
 
Snapshot said:
They'll all autofocus if they're the current versions. I suspect the OP just hasn't given the full descriptions to let us confirm this.
Click to expand...
This, plus for macro work AF is not that important.

Ksanati si correct in that one doesn-t take a maco photo at 2.8 typically, but the true aperture when at MFD will be moe like 5.6 anyway and the fats aperture amkes for brighter viewfinder.
 
explicit4u said:
Out of interest, why are you ditching the D3100 for the D5100?.
Click to expand...

Mainly for for the auto bracketing function.

I think I'll pop for 105mm Nikon, I bought my 55-300mm lens because I thought that if I bought the 55-200mm I'd always be thinking "Wish I'd bought the 55-300"
If I buy the 60mm I may end up thinking "I should have bought the 105mm"

I will always have my tripod on me so being heavier won't be an issue.

Cheers for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom