Macro Lens for D3100

[Rebel]

Hello

I am looking to purchase a macro lens for my D3100, I don't want to spend a huge amount as I am just a beginner.

I have done a bit of research and I am considering getting the Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Lens.

Any views or recommendations?

Thanks

[Stagecoach]

That's a rather strange choice for a beginner Matt, do you have a specific reason for choosing the 40mm as the working distance is going to be rather close.

What are you intended subjects?

Grahame

[Rebel]

That's a rather strange choice for a beginner Matt, do you have a specific reason for choosing the 40mm as the working distance is going to be rather close.

What are you intended subjects?

Grahame

Hi Grahame,

I read a few reviews and I came to the conclusion that this was a good lens for someone "testing the water" so to speak in macro photography?

I don't really have any specific subjects, would just like to try my hand at it.

Can you recommend a lens?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Grahame,

I read a few reviews and I came to the conclusion that this was a good lens for someone "testing the water" so to speak in macro photography?

I don't really have any specific subjects, would just like to try my hand at it.

Can you recommend a lens?

Matt,

The most common focal length macro lens is in the range 90 to 105. This focal length gives you a good working distance at around 300mm at the maximum 1:1 magnification ratio.

There are both shorter and longer focal lengths which have their purpose.

As for a recommendation I would suggest to consider the Tamron 90mm and whilst it does not have VR as the equivalent Nikon 105VR (which I use) it has an excellent reputation for image quality clearly supported by the results from it shown on macro sites.

Grahame

[Rebel]

Cheers Grahame, I'll have a look at it.

Is this one? http://www.ezpecial.com/prime-lens/2...nt-nikon_mount

[shreds]

+1 for the Nikon 105mm. Great lens for the money and you will no longer need to upgrade once you have 'tested the water' so to speak. Doubles as a portrait lens too.

Good lenses are not cheap in the short term, but take the plunge and you will not regret it, .......it will outlast your camera.

[Stagecoach]

Cheers Grahame, I'll have a look at it.

Is this one? http://www.ezpecial.com/prime-lens/2...nt-nikon_mount

That's the one Matt and Tamron have also got a VC (vibration compensation) out now but more expensive of course.

Ian mentions the 105mm Nikon which is a superb lens but it's all down to what you want to spend and I fully agree with him that once you have bought one you are unlikely to ever want to upgrade it.

Just in case you are not aware there are other options for getting into 'close up' photography and these are the use of either extension tubes that go between body and lens or 'close up lenses' that attach to the front of the lens, favoured by some as a cheaper route.

Grahame

[Rebel]

That's the one Matt and Tamron have also got a VC (vibration compensation) out now but more expensive of course.

Ian mentions the 105mm Nikon which is a superb lens but it's all down to what you want to spend and I fully agree with him that once you have bought one you are unlikely to ever want to upgrade it.

Just in case you are not aware there are other options for getting into 'close up' photography and these are the use of either extension tubes that go between body and lens or 'close up lenses' that attach to the front of the lens, favoured by some as a cheaper route.

Grahame

I've looked at the Nikon 105mm and that is out of my price range. I've just had a look at the Tamron SP 90mm Flickr group and there are some stunning photos taken with it on there, so I think I'll go with this one.

Thanks for all your help, appreciated.

[Black Pearl]

If you just want to experiment with macro you could try a set of extension tubes, see how you get on then should you catch the bug () you can still use them on a dedicated macro lens to get even closer.

[Rebel]

Thanks Robin, that would be the most sensible idea...

[ajohnw]

Test wise the Nikon crop 85mm macro lens comes out well. Camera shops tend to say what it's plastic but it does appear to be a good lens. Some googling to see results is always a good idea.

The Tokina macro lens also has a good reputation but personally I feel that if some one wants to shoot live insects and doesn't want to use a tripod they will soon be thinking about one with image stabilisation.

The shorter focal length ones can be used to shoot insects but there is a need to get rather close so they are more suited to indoor work really. Geoff on here does a lot of macro work in fields etc and he goes for the longest one he can get. Some people who use 100mm lenses also fit them with converters and even an extension tube as well.

Robin mentions extension tubes. The CinC macro tutorials give some idea of what these can do. They are most suited to medium length telephoto lenses and shorter. Close up lenses can give good results as well but I suspect that these need to be achromatic and come into their own at longer focal lengths - check this in the tutorials as this is from memory. I use one. An early Sigma one that was designed to be used with one of their zoom lenses. It works great as far as detail is concerned. I decided to get a stronger one made by Canon - just sent it back to the suppliers as it wont take sharp shots. They also do a weaker one so if anyone wants to try one i would suggest Amazon or some one with an easy return policy just in case. I did make sure that the blur wasn't down to me.

Insects are getting fewer and fewer now where I shoot as the weather has become cooler. Something to bear in mind if that is what you want to do. There are always plenty of shots posted on here in the summer months and that tends to give people the bug. Possibly a bit late in the year. If anyone shoots bugs all year round in the UK it would be interesting to here their views on this subject.. It might turn out that there is plenty of time to save any spare cash.

John
-

[ajohnw]

There is a decent album of shots taken with the Nikon 85mm here, good album as some are better than others as would be expected. They also expand to full res but flickr seem to have messed up my browser panning.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jesusg...th/6766844911/

I've been interested in this lens for some time for if I give up using m 4/3 for macro work.

John
-

[DanK]

I don't shoot Nikon, so I know nada about the Nikon lenses, but I do shoot a lot of macro, so I can chime in with a few things.

First, a lot of what is best depends on what you are going to shoot, but I can't think of any macro work for which I would buy a 40mm lens. If you don't have one specific use in mind, I second what Grahame wrote: 90 to 105 mm.

Second, for the most part, you needn't worry about VC, if your only concern is using the lens for macro work. Even apart from the fact that a lot of macro work uses flash to freeze motion or a tripod or monopod, most VC systems correct for rotational motion, which becomes less and less important as you get closer to the point of rotation, i.e., the camera. In contrast, as you get close to the camera, motion parallel to the sensor becomes MORE important. The problem is that very few lenses correct for the latter type of motion. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, only Canon's hybrid IS does, and that is available only on a few of Canon's lenses (and only one of Canon's macro lenses, the 100mm L).

Third, while I have used only Canon macro lenses, all of what I have read indicates that most dedicated macro lenses are very sharp. The reviews of the Tamron and Sigma lenses have been very good. The main differences are other features. E.g., does the lens extend? Does it provide full time manual focusing? How good is its AF? (With respect to the last, while most macro is not done with AF, I do sometimes use it, in particular, to get an approximate focus, after which I move the camera to try to get fine focus and track the bug.)

[FrankMi]

If you just want to experiment with macro you could try a set of extension tubes, see how you get on then should you catch the bug () you can still use them on a dedicated macro lens to get even closer.

I'd second that if you haven't decided on what you want to shoot and are just getting started. I have a set of extension tubes for my D3100 and so far I've been very pleased with the result. On the other hand, I just haven't done enough macro work as yet to justify the expense of a dedicated lens. Your budget may be more lucrative then mine!

[ajohnw]

I don't shoot Nikon, so I know nada about the Nikon lenses, but I do shoot a lot of macro, so I can chime in with a few things.

First, a lot of what is best depends on what you are going to shoot, but I can't think of any macro work for which I would buy a 40mm lens. If you don't have one specific use in mind, I second what Grahame wrote: 90 to 105 mm.

Second, for the most part, you needn't worry about VC, if your only concern is using the lens for macro work. Even apart from the fact that a lot of macro work uses flash to freeze motion or a tripod or monopod, most VC systems correct for rotational motion, which becomes less and less important as you get closer to the point of rotation, i.e., the camera. In contrast, as you get close to the camera, motion parallel to the sensor becomes MORE important. The problem is that very few lenses correct for the latter type of motion. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, only Canon's hybrid IS does, and that is available only on a few of Canon's lenses (and only one of Canon's macro lenses, the 100mm L).

Third, while I have used only Canon macro lenses, all of what I have read indicates that most dedicated macro lenses are very sharp. The reviews of the Tamron and Sigma lenses have been very good. The main differences are other features. E.g., does the lens extend? Does it provide full time manual focusing? How good is its AF? (With respect to the last, while most macro is not done with AF, I do sometimes use it, in particular, to get an approximate focus, after which I move the camera to try to get fine focus and track the bug.)

I hear what you say Dan but I feel IS can help keep thing steady for focusing manually or otherwise as it will also help the AF. I believe in lens IS corrects for side to side and up and down motion but as you point out on most lenses doesn't correct for distance. Some sensor shift types do within limits and tilt of the plane of focus.

Flash does freeze motion but I have found situations where the flash contribution to the lighting is rather low so double image / blur is possible. IS is like to increase the keeper rate as the main problem will be the plain and point of focus - the same as when flash is used.

Really when mention macro and IS people aught be be saying well it isn't as effective as when used on telephoto lenses due to the totally different depths of field available. Not that it's of no use. Have I used both - yes.

John
-