Macro Lens for D7000

[Acorn]

I have a Nikon D7000 that I use for wildlife photography, but my modest kit does not include a macro lens to shoot the likes of butterflies and smaller insects. Looking at previous threads on macro lens choices, the last posting was in 2012. Maybe manufacturers have introduced new lenses since then? But I would appreciate some recommendations that preferably are not going to break the bank. A friend in passing mentioned a Sigma 18-40mm but I don't think there is such a lens. Please include even third-party lenses that give crisp results.

B

[NorthernFocus]

The Sigma 105mm macro is renowned for its image quality at a modest price relative to Nikon. I own both and would not spend the money on the Nikon unless you need the VR. I use them to shoot flowers, not true macro work.

[PhotomanJohn]

Since your camera has an internal focus motor, I would suggest you consider a used Nikkor Micro 60mm f/2.8D lens. They are very sharp, and work well on crop sensor cameras. If you want more distance between the camera and the subject, look into the 105mm f/2.8D which will probably cost you another $100.

John

[Stagecoach]

Hi Barry,

I would suggest the first thing you consider is just what sort of results you want to achieve. The term macro is used rather loosely but by definition is achieving a 1:1 ratio between subject and sensor size.

Macro has been my main area of photography for a number of years and over that time from my own experience and from reading and seeing the results of other serious macro shooters excellent results can be achieved with all the main manufacturers macro lenses.

The Tamron 90mm seems to be one that demonstrates most often superb results and reviews say it has equal or better optical quality to the Nikon 105.

Some will say getting a lens with VR/IS is a waste of time for macro based on the assumption that for best results a tripod should be used. My view and from personal experience is that VR/IS is extremely beneficial as very often a tripod can not be used and any amount of stability assistance is a bonus.

There are cheaper ways of achieving 'close up' shots but I will not go into these as you specifically mention a macro lens.

Grahame

[John 2]

I would definitely go for a longer lens. It allows you to stand back further and there is less chance of scaring off anything that is mobile, a problem I have regularly encountered using my 60mm Fuji macro. As a result, I mainly use a Tokina 100mm f2. 8 and it is excellent, but I only bought it because the Tamron equivalent was so popular at the time, I couldn't find one. The Tamron, Sigma and Tokina lenses all seem to be reviewed as better than the main camera manufacturer's offerings for performance as well as price.

[Melkus]

Going to add in the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 into the mix

[Dave Humphries]

Another thing possible using older lenses, ones that typically won't have AF (auto-focus) is that if you are shooting bugs handheld and want the maximum magnification anyway, just set the lens manually to the minimum focus distance, then move yourself (and camera) to and fro until focus is achieved.

I would agree that anything 90mm or over (and the longer the better), will give more chance of success with insects.

I tried with some success with old 55mm and 90mm macro lenses initially, but ended up getting the Nikon 105mm with VR (and AF) eventually - not cheap, nor light, but definitely more usable.

[pnodrog]

There was a thread a few weeks ago on a similar topic -- Looking for a Nikon lens...

[singlerosa]

I've been using the Tokina 100 2.8 for the past several years on my D7000 (and occasionally on my D600) with nice results. As others have mentioned, if you don't need VR, you might not need the Nikon 105 VR micro (and its price).

[Acorn]

No really conclusive winner but thanks for all the comments, especially pnodrog. My inclination at the moment is to look in the direction of Sigma and Tamron.

B