Macro?

[Fishn2photog]

I am looking at getting a macro lens and I was wanting some feedback first.
If I were only able to get one macro lens that I could use for general portraits also, would this be a good one?
~Nikon 60 mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor Lens ~
What are ya'lls thoughts on this? Thank ahead of time for any advise you can give me.

Kelly

[Tom]

Why do you want to use a macro lens for portraits? I would get something faster for portraits like a 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4, etc.

[CaptainTom]

I would recommend going in THIS DIRECTION and give up on that lens.

[Fishn2photog]

Sorry for the confusion. I want it for macro use, but also want to know if it would be good for other uses also. Not buying it for portraits. Thanks.

[toverman]

I've heard that the Nikkor 105 f/2.8 micro is about as good a macro lens as you can get for your Nikon. Might have too limited of a field of view on your D90 for much else, but it's a sweet lens. It's going to depend on your budget if that's one you can go for; it's not cheap. I recommend reading reviews on that lens; I don't know if it autofocuses well. Also read up on extension tubes. You might be able to use some of your existing lenses to approach or reach a 1:1 image reproduction.

My Canon 100 f/2.8 macro is a fine consumer-grade lens and I love it for macro photography, where I use manual focus exclusively. I don't use it for anything else, though, because autofocus is ridiculously slow. Canon's newer 100 f/2.8L IS macro is better in that regard, but beyond what I'm willing to spend on a macro lens right now.

[Fishn2photog]

Tom - I'm guessing there is a Nikon equivelant to that lens. With that can you tell me why the 100 over a 60? I am a newbie and have only owned my first DSLR for about 4 months or so now. All of this is fairly new to me and I am learning as fast as I can, but don't have it all just yet :) All advise and info is greatly appreciated.

[jfoureyes]

Here's a link that may help to decide.

Macro FAQs

[tomdrink]

I have the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro (that's what Nikon calls macro). It autofocuses just fine, and I also use it for portraits. It is a very sharp lens. Just needs a larger working distance on my D200.
Tom

[Fishn2photog]

My pockets are not real deep. :/
So I was hoping to stay around the neighborhood of $500-$600.

[Fishn2photog]

Thanks guys. I'll check out that link Jim. Appreciate it.

[RKEnnis]

Originally Posted by Fishn2photog

My pockets are not real deep. :/
So I was hoping to stay around the neighborhood of $500-$600.

I just picked up a copy of the Nikon AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm F3.5G VR. I was just over $500.00 shipped.

I really wanted the 105 2.8 vr, but I didn't want to spend that much. Plus I wanted to get an 85mm prime for other uses, so I felt this lens was a good compromise. I've done a couple of portrait tests - it's a little long, but I like it.

So far I'm pretty happy with the lens. It could use a bit more working distance for macro, it's it still usable. It's nice and light, with decent build quality. Of course, the downside is that it's a DX lens, but I'm ok with that. (I think it'll be a while before I make the move to a full frame body)

Note that I'm a macro newbie, so keep that in mind when reading this post. :)

I've got quite a few shots taken with this lens on my flickr stream:

Flickr: TXphotoblog's Photostream

Or there are a couple of shots in this thread:
http://www.TexasPhotoForum.com/forum...acro-lens.html

[jfoureyes]

Originally Posted by Fishn2photog

Tom - I'm guessing there is a Nikon equivelant to that lens. With that can you tell me why the 100 over a 60? I am a newbie and have only owned my first DSLR for about 4 months or so now. All of this is fairly new to me and I am learning as fast as I can, but don't have it all just yet :) All advise and info is greatly appreciated.

Working distance is the main reason you want to use something in the 105 or longer range. I've been using the old Nikkor AF 105/2.8D since 1995 for nature macro work. I shoot butterflies, spiders, dragonflies, damselflies, and various other small insect along with flowers (just posted some over on the nature forum last week). Another setup I use for shy critters is a long zoom lens 75-300 and 80-200 with a 25 mm extension tube. It provides me about 4-5 feet of working distance so I can work on subjects and I never get in their circle of fear. I use both manual focus and AF when I'm working it really depends on the subject.

[toverman]

^ Jim knows his macro stuff ... just search for any thread he's started in the macro area of this forum.

Besides not scaring off the little beasties, having extra working distance also means you're less likely to be in your own light when shooting outdoors. There's never enough light anyway, so casting a shadow by having to get closer is a real bummer.

[Tom]

I have a great Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro that is about $700 new, so it would be close to 600-650 used.

I'm not much with the bugs and flowers, so I will defer to on all that. But that Sigma is a fantastic lens.

[Fishn2photog]

Thanks for all the responses and great information. Now I'll just have to chew on it all a bit :)