[TarMoo]

I like to visit a lot of National Trust and other gardens and find myself taking a few pictures of flowers. However, my main photo interest is portraits. So I am interested in getting a new lens which covers both macro photography and makes a good portrait lens as well. My main questions are:

1: What Focal Length
I had a play with a Sigma 105 macro and a Nikon AF 60mm f2.8 D Macro (the old one). It appears to be that you can't get must more than a head and shoulders portrait with the 105 unless you move a long way back from the subject. The 60 mm lens appear to be a better portrait lens than the 105, and I suspect that the 150 would be way too long.

2: Which Brand?
The main options here are Nikon (60, 105VR), Sigma (50, 70, 105, 150), Tamaron (90). The Nikons tend to have better build quality, but the image quality on the competition is very similar at a much lower price. I would be prepared to go for the more expensive lens if the results justify it.

3: FX or DX lenses
Since the D300 and some of the higher spec Nikon DSLR can use all the older Nikon lenses, is there any special reason to use them of not? Maybe one day we will all shoot full frame DSLRs like the D3, so are the FX lens a "better" long term investment. What is the focussing advantages of the older FX vs the newer DX lenses.

4: Tripod, monopod or Image Stabilisation
Lugging a tripod around with me is not ideal, so the appeal of the VR lens may be attractive if it means that images can be captured (maybe at 1:3 rather than 1:1) without a tripod. A light monopod is a alternative. Do they work well with macro photography or is a tripod essential.

I am sort of leaning towards the new New Nikkor AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8G ED Lens, but maybe the 105 VR may be better because of the image stabilisation. I'm still a little confused as which is the best option.

[Yandros]

Hmm, tricky.

Here's another option for you - I have the 105VR f2.8 and the good old little Nikon 50mm f1.8. 105mm is indeed too long for portraits indoors in small rooms, but fine if you can take a few steps backwards outdoors - and superb for handheld flower work. I only bother with a tripod if I'm planning on approaching 1:1. The 105mm is also a great length for places like zoos.

Of course this 2 lens option is even MORE expensive than you planned, but it would be hugely flexible.

This was taken resting on my elbows on the ground, 105mm 1/15th sec, f5.6. 4 stops of VR...gotta love it!

[jomike]

Do you really need a Macro (1:1) lens? A Nikon 50mm f1.8 will probably meet most, if not all, of your needs. In low light you can just open the aperture, and it probably focuses down to about 1:3. If you do want to focus closer, you can always get a set of extension tubes.
Handholding at this focal length should also be doable.
I would just get one to see if it does the job, they are cheap enough. If you really don't like it you could probably sell it again at not much of a loss.

Mike

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by jomike

Do you really need a Macro (1:1) lens? A Nikon 50mm f1.8 will probably meet most, if not all, of your needs. In low light you can just open the aperture, and it probably focuses down to about 1:3. If you do want to focus closer, you can always get a set of extension tubes.
Handholding at this focal length should also be doable.
I would just get one to see if it does the job, they are cheap enough. If you really don't like it you could probably sell it again at not much of a loss.

Mike

Yeah, I use the 50mm f1.8 for some larger flowers. It doesn't natively focus close enough for small stuff though, and I reckon you'd have trouble getting handholding it in less than ideal lighting.

Here's an example (nice bright day though so no problems with shutter speed). It's a lovely sharp contrasty lens, with lots of character...

By all means try one first and see how you get on with it.

[TarMoo]

Originally Posted by jomike

Do you really need a Macro (1:1) lens? A Nikon 50mm f1.8 will probably meet most, if not all, of your needs. In low light you can just open the aperture, and it probably focuses down to about 1:3. If you do want to focus closer, you can always get a set of extension tubes.
Handholding at this focal length should also be doable.
I would just get one to see if it does the job, they are cheap enough. If you really don't like it you could probably sell it again at not much of a loss.

Mike

I think I would prefer a 60mm 2.8 Macro to a 50mm 1.8. Isn't depth of field a big issue with macro work requiring F8 type appertures rather than F2. My D300 does allow high ISO in poor light.

For Nikon 105 VR users, what percentage of your shots make use of the image stabilisation? I read that VR should be switched off on a tripod and I have read some comments ehich suggest that VR on this lens is rarely used.

[Liquid101]

I have the 60mm 2.8 Macro. It's an great lens, for both closeup and portraits - i've even shot landscapes with it

Having a focus limiting switch is nice when you're not using it for macro if you like using AF, and the extra 10mm reach can be useful for photographing the kids.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by rasputin

I think I would prefer a 60mm 2.8 Macro to a 50mm 1.8. Isn't depth of field a big issue with macro work requiring F8 type appertures rather than F2. My D300 does allow high ISO in poor light.

For Nikon 105 VR users, what percentage of your shots make use of the image stabilisation? I read that VR should be switched off on a tripod and I have read some comments ehich suggest that VR on this lens is rarely used.

If you want subject/background separation a shallow DOF is better for flowers - ie more of a portrait style than a scientific study. Unless you've got a black background, anything more than about f8 gets a bit fussy.

For flowers - 100% of my 105VR stuff handheld is with VR on, and naturally VR is off when on a tripod. As I mentioned earlier, unless you're going near 1:1 the VR totally negates the need for a tripod. If you're bug hunting at 1:1, or habitually use a tripod, I can see VR being of limited use. If you're wandering around a national trust garden shooting flowers, VR will be an amazing asset. Due to forward and back motion you often need to take 2-3 shots to make sure you get a keeper though, but this is no hardship.

[jomike]

Originally Posted by rasputin

I think I would prefer a 60mm 2.8 Macro to a 50mm 1.8. Isn't depth of field a big issue with macro work requiring F8 type appertures rather than F2. My D300 does allow high ISO in poor light.

For Nikon 105 VR users, what percentage of your shots make use of the image stabilisation? I read that VR should be switched off on a tripod and I have read some comments ehich suggest that VR on this lens is rarely used.

For 1:1 macro work with my Tamron 90mm, I typically use f16 for maximum DOF, I find this is the limit where you start seeing diffraction if you stop down more. The 50mm f1.8 can also be stopped down (to f32 max I think) if you want more depth of field, or opened up to f1.8 if you want to let in more light in low light and keep up shutter speed, or if you want to blur the background to isolate your subject (shallower depth of field).
The reason I questioned if you needed a macro lens is because you stated that you did not really want to go to 1:1. The 50mm f1.8 is about 1/3 of the price of the Nikon 60mm macro, so if you want to try this focal length, but are'nt sure, this would be a cheap way to find out. The 60mm is, no doubt, an excellent sharp portrait lens as are most macro lenses.

Mike

[TarMoo]

Originally Posted by jomike

For 1:1 macro work with my Tamron 90mm, I typically use f16 for maximum DOF, I find this is the limit where you start seeing diffraction if you stop down more. The 50mm f1.8 can also be stopped down (to f32 max I think) if you want more depth of field, or opened up to f1.8 if you want to let in more light in low light and keep up shutter speed, or if you want to blur the background to isolate your subject (shallower depth of field).
The reason I questioned if you needed a macro lens is because you stated that you did not really want to go to 1:1. The 50mm f1.8 is about 1/3 of the price of the Nikon 60mm macro, so if you want to try this focal length, but are'nt sure, this would be a cheap way to find out. The 60mm is, no doubt, an excellent sharp portrait lens as are most macro lenses.

Mike

Actually I would occasionally like to go down to 1:1. The new 60mm Nikon is the sharpest Nokon Macro ever. In fact Tamron, Sigma and Nikon lenses are all seem to get at least 4/5 ratings, so you can't really pick a bad lens.

As a portait lens the Tamron 90 is probably a better focal length than the Sigma 105. Comparing the Nikon 60mm vs 105VR, the 105VR has a better working distance for macro work and allows non-tripod Macro shots with its gain of up to 4 stops image stabilsation, but is more limited for indoor portraits. Thom has a comparison on the Nikon 105VR and Tamron 90 here and he seems to prefer the more expensive Nikon lens.

So I think my preference order is now:

1. Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR
2. Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di
3. Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED (the new 60mm)

The 105VR appears to have a lot more flexibility as a "walk about" lens.

[jomike]

If cost is not a factor then the Nikon 105VR is an excellent choice. The Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 are about half the price of the Nikon, and I doubt you will be able to see a difference in IQ. So, essentially you are paying about £200 extra for VR and a better build quality. You pays your money.......
The Nikon 60mm is a bit short for nature macros at 1:1, I think you will find the lens shades the subject.

BTW, I have just posted some flower portraits here taken with the Tamron 90mm macro.

Mike