Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Good Macro Lens For Nikon/ D90?

1

103734

Guest
Original poster
Apr 10, 2007
723
0
Well I sold all my canon gear when I switched over to the Nikon camp and im trying to build up my collection again.

When I had my canon camera I used the 60mm macro lens from canon (this one LINK ) that one was pretty much perfect, if I could find something close to that for my D90 was perfect if anything maybe something with a bit more zoom.

What would you guys suggest? I don't know to much about Nikons offerings. Nothing to expensive, really i would like to keep it under $400, but the cheaper the better.

EDIT: also autofocus is not needed, if it has it great, im more concerned about image quality and price then autofocus.
 
luminosity

luminosity

macrumors 65816
Jan 10, 2006
1,364
0
Arizona
For about $500, depending on the vendor, you can get the outstanding and new 60mm AF-S micro Nikon. I had it for a time and sold it only because it didn't fit my needs.
 
O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
There are several options:
(1) Nikon's own 60 mm macros, they have just put out a new version -- which means, you may get the old one for a discount. Both versions autofocus just fine on your camera -- if you want to. The old version would exactly fit your budget, the new one is a tad more expensive.
(2) If you prefer a longer focal length, have a look at the 105 mm by Tokina -- which is substantially cheaper than Nikon's own. Highly recommended by photozone and other reviewers.
 
1

103734

Guest
Original poster
Apr 10, 2007
723
0
I think I might go with the old version of the lens, what did they update with the new one?

Do you think I should just splurge for the new model? Its only about $80 more.
 
luminosity

luminosity

macrumors 65816
Jan 10, 2006
1,364
0
Arizona
Get the new model. It's an outstanding lens. Never heard a bad word about it, and plenty of good ones (including my own experience).
 
1

103734

Guest
Original poster
Apr 10, 2007
723
0
So is that sigma lens a ok bet? I might just pick it up today if it's an ok lens.
 
GoCubsGo

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,742
155
I just bought the Tamron 90mm which is awesome. I asked the camera shop if money were no object would they recommend the 105mm by Nikon over the 90mm by Tamron and he said not at all. While the Nikon is great, the Tamron is nearly identical in terms of image quality and I saved about 50% of the cost.
 
O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
Ditto on the Tamron, this lens uses an old design but has earned a reputation. Back in the film days, it was a very popular portrait lens. Personally, I don't like Sigma very much, Tokinas feel much better in my hands.
 
1

103734

Guest
Original poster
Apr 10, 2007
723
0
well i decided I should let you guys know what I went with.



A Tamron 10-24mm!!!! I went to my local shop to look at some of the macro lenses when I found out they had the 10-24mm, I tried it and ended up buying it right there :p.

Awesome lens!
 
carfac

carfac

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2006
1,241
29
SUPERSTEVE9219 said:
So is that sigma lens a ok bet?
Click to expand...

I do not mean to be personal about anyone's choice, or knock anyone here.... but what is the point of buying a Nikon camera? To me, it is to use Nikon glass. Sure Nikon lenses cost more than Sigma, or Konica or whatever... but Nikons are better in every case.

Sure, budget comes into play. But I would ALWAYS wait an extra month or two to afford the Nikon lens over any off-brand buy today. I would just say if you are gonna buy a Sigma lens, why did you bother buying a Nikon body?

Again, no offense intended to anyone else's choices in lenses; JMO.

So, get the Nikon 60mm.. and get the new one. Great lens.
 
Plymouthbreezer

Plymouthbreezer

macrumors 601
Feb 27, 2005
4,337
253
Massachusetts
I just got the older 60mm (f/2.8D) Nikkor Micro... I rather it over the newer version because it allows more working room when shooting in Macro, still features the aperture ring (if you have film Nikons, this is useful), and retails for less. It also feels more substantially constructed.
 
C

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,833
2,038
Redondo Beach, California
carfac said:
I
Sure, budget comes into play. But I would ALWAYS wait an extra month or two to afford the Nikon lens over any off-brand buy today. I would just say if you are gonna buy a Sigma lens, why did you bother buying a Nikon body?

Again, no offense intended to anyone else's choices in lenses; JMO.

So, get the Nikon 60mm.. and get the new one. Great lens.
Click to expand...

I look at in an another way. I have a Nikon body and because I do I can save a bundle on lenses. For example my Nikor Micro lens is the 55mm f/3.5 AIs lens and I paid just under $100 for it. I'm willing to bet that my 55mm lens is as sharp or better then anything on the market today. At one time the 55mm Macro (or as Nikon called it "micro-nikor") was the sharpest lens in the world. It was one of the lenses that made Nikon's reputation.

With a Nikon body you can take advantage of all those great older lenses. And the build quality of those older lenses is SO much better then even the "pro" level modern lenses. The just don't build them out of solid brass anymore.
 
compuwar

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
carfac said:
Sure Nikon lenses cost more than Sigma, or Konica or whatever... but Nikons are better in every case.
Click to expand...

That's a completely specious statement. While Nikon makes some great glass, they also make some crap. Sigma makes a few lenses that are better than their Nikkor counterparts (mostly of much newer optical designs using modern materials,) and the Tamron 90mm SP Di holds its own very well against everything in its class. There are also those who prefer the Zeiss ZF lenses to their Nikkor counterparts.

In my direct experience the Nikkor 80-400VR is worse at 400mm than the Sigma 50-500mm is at 500mm in terms of overall image quality and sharpness. Given the range differences and the fact that the Sigma is slightly cheaper, that says a whole bunch right there (and that's not simply true of the sample of each lens that I personally purchased, it's endemic of other samples and verifiable in the MTF charts as well.)

Looking at the charts, I'd expect the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 to outperform the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8, the Sigma 50mm f/1.8 seems like it's at least as good as the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and looks like it holds a little more resolution at the edges.

Rabid fanism sucks.
 
luminosity

luminosity

macrumors 65816
Jan 10, 2006
1,364
0
Arizona
The Sigma 35 and 50mm 1.4 HSMs were one of the few options available for in-lens focusing until recently, when Nikon finally released the 50mm AF-S. As I understand it, those two Sigmas are still pretty good (it's not like they shriveled into nothing upon the AF-S's appearance).
 
georgemann

georgemann

macrumors regular
Nov 25, 2005
114
4
Seattle, Washington & Siem Reap, Cambodia
compuwar

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
compuwar

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
Plymouthbreezer said:
I just got the older 60mm (f/2.8D) Nikkor Micro... I rather it over the newer version because it allows more working room when shooting in Macro, still features the aperture ring (if you have film Nikons, this is useful), and retails for less. It also feels more substantially constructed.
Click to expand...

I'm curious- if you wanted working distance why not go with the Tamron 90mm or one of the 105mm Nikkors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom