Macro photography - what do I need?

steven_9709

Prominent Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
792
Reaction score
166
Points
279
Age
51
Location
Shortstown - with the Snails
So, thinking about purchasing a dedicated macro lens for my d90/d5100.

I'm thinking of either getting the Nikon AF-S VR Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-Micro...F8&qid=1372343071&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+105mm)

or the

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens (Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro Lens for Nikon: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics)

So questions....

What are peoples views on the above lenses? I've done a bit of research myself and at the moment I'm leaning towards the Sigma.

Also, in order the get those really close up photos of bugs and stuff (like in the macro thread (http://www.avforums.com/forums/photo-sharing/1753724-macro-close-up-thread-part-6-a.html)) will I need any further equipment? Like a tripod, ring-flash etc?

Thanks all :smashin:
 
— As an Amazon Associate, AVForums earns from qualifying purchases —
Have a look at the Tamron 90mm f2.8, it's certainly a match for the Sigma 105mm and cheaper too (MUCH cheaper than the Nikon).
 
Thanks.

All hand held. I like to get down in the dirt with the critters - move fast and light. ;)

I use a Yongnuo flash like this

and a Lumiquest softbox like this

The pics just have a bit of contrast adjustment and a bit of sharpening.

The main thing by far is lots of practice :thumbsup:
 
— As an Amazon Associate, AVForums earns from qualifying purchases —
Should do. But most people use manual focus for macro
 
Small F stop like F11 onwards as depth of field is against you and shutter speed as high as the cameras flash sync ie 1/200, obviously base ISO100.
 
Thanks, thought it would, hence the AF in the name ;)

Looking at getting into macro a bit more, just wanted to cover all bases

So, next question then, what are the best settings to use for macro. Shutter speed, aperture etc?

Take a look at macro shots on flickr, look at the exif to see what has been used.
 
Well, my Tokina turned up a couple of days ago, and turned out it doesn't auto focus on my 5100

Also, just couldn't get on with it either...so it's going back to Amazon.

Thinking I'll just take the hit and get the Nikon 105 VR micro instead...
 
If your going big why not get the Zeiss 100mmF2 although thats guaranteed to not autofocus.. hehe

Joking aside the Nikon is the better of the three tbh, i'm borrowing the old non-vr D version off a mate next week, have to compare each others findings :smashin:
 
Well, my Tokina turned up a couple of days ago, and turned out it doesn't auto focus on my 5100

Also, just couldn't get on with it either...so it's going back to Amazon.

Thinking I'll just take the hit and get the Nikon 105 VR micro instead...

You are wasting your money. Get the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm.

For Nikon money you are into Sigma 150mm or Tamron 180mm territory.
 
Last edited:
He is paying for the brand and build quality, but I think he knows that... if I were investing, I'd be tempted by the Zeiss, but probably end up with the M4/3 Olympus 60mmF2.8 cos I'm a cheap ass lol..
 
He is paying for the brand and build quality, but I think he knows that... if I were investing, I'd be tempted by the Zeiss, but probably end up with the M4/3 Olympus 60mmF2.8 cos I'm a cheap ass lol..

With respect to the OP, a beginner paying £600 on a 105mm macro lens is insanity when you can get similar performance at a third of the price from a second-hand Sigma 105mm.

The Nikon is not £400 better and if the OP really gets into macro they can sell the cheaper lens to move onto something "better" and lose very little. That £400 difference is far better spent on a ring-flash.
 
With respect to the OP, a beginner paying £600 on a 105mm macro lens is insanity when you can get similar performance at a third of the price from a second-hand Sigma 105mm.

The Nikon is not £400 better and if the OP really gets into macro they can sell the cheaper lens to move onto something "better" and lose very little. That £400 difference is far better spent on a ring-flash.

+1 - and also nothing wrong with either the Tamron Build or the Sigma IMO :)
 
Agreed 100%.. but personally I and many others have been brought up to buy the best you can afford and it has always kept the 'what if' factor at arms length for me... and the op has already shirked at the Tokina, what is an excellent lens.

I would argue the build is better due to no extension when focusing. Would I pay the difference.. like I said if I were going all out I'm getting the Zeiss, otherwise probably the Olympus.
 
Agreed 100%.. but personally I and many others have been brought up to buy the best you can afford and it has always kept the 'what if' factor at arms length for me... and the op has already shirked at the Tokina, what is an excellent lens.

I would argue the build is better due to no extension when focusing. Would I pay the difference.. like I said if I were going all out I'm getting the Zeiss, otherwise probably the Olympus.

Debateable indeed ;) - and it replaces one "what if" with another.... "what if I just wasted an extra £400?" - or maybe "What If the xxxx is actually better?" :devil:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom