60? 90? 105? Macro expert. Help!!

[scaredcloud]

Hi, am thinking to get a macro lens to complete my range.

currently I'm having these focal range:

12-24, 17-55, 50, 85, 70-300.

Which macro should I get in your opinion?
60? 90? 105? or any other option?

In terms of
1) Performance
2) fits best to my focal range
3) value for money?

p/s: Nikon mount.

Thanks in advance!


(SOrry, forgot to add, I only want a prime )

[spartacus.ret]

easy. sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro.

[Scaglietti]

Originally Posted by scaredcloud Hi, am thinking to get a macro lens to complete my range. currently I'm having these focal range: 12-24, 17-55, 50, 85, 70-300. Which macro should I get in your opinion? 60? 90? 105? or any other option? In terms of 1) Performance 2) fits best to my focal range 3) value for money? p/s: Nikon mount. Thanks in advance! (SOrry, forgot to add, I only want a prime )

One question you need to answer... what type of subject you'll be shooting with the macro lens?

BC

[scaredcloud]

Originally Posted by Scaglietti One question you need to answer... what type of subject you'll be shooting with the macro lens? BC

Still lifes, insects, food, except floral.

[scaredcloud]

Originally Posted by spartacus.ret easy. sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX Macro.

any reason?

[Scaglietti]

Originally Posted by scaredcloud Still lifes, insects, food, except floral.

If you are shooting insects, it's advisible to use the longer focal length. It allows you to shoot at longer distance without spooking the insect.

BC

[calebk]

No offence, but are you really gonna shoot macro, or are you just 'completing the range' as you said?

IMHO there's no point completing the range and spending on a macro lens if you aren't gonna use it much.

[scaredcloud]

Originally Posted by Scaglietti If you are shooting insects, it's advisible to use the longer focal length. It allows you to shoot at longer distance without spooking the insect. BC

Longer meaning 105 onwards?
I was trying to do some read up on macro lens.
It seems that 105VR aperture will go down to 4.8 when doing 1:1 in order to avoid big extension of barrel.
How about other brands? For example tamron, it really extends, does it mean the aperture number not changed?

[scaredcloud]

Originally Posted by calebk No offence, but are you really gonna shoot macro, or are you just 'completing the range' as you said? IMHO there's no point completing the range and spending on a macro lens if you aren't gonna use it much.

Primary objective is a macro lens as I find limitation shooting some stuffs now.
Secondary objective: is it better that this macro will complement my focal range.


p/s: I use it much, at least 3 times a week, currently I m using my compact to fulfil the job.

[majere2sg]

Originally Posted by scaredcloud Longer meaning 105 onwards? I was trying to do some read up on macro lens. It seems that 105VR aperture will go down to 4.8 when doing 1:1 in order to avoid big extension of barrel. How about other brands? For example tamron, it really extends, does it mean the aperture number not changed?

When there is an extension of barrel, there is already loss of light.
All macro lens aperture will change at 1:1.

[scaredcloud]

Originally Posted by majere2sg When there is an extension of barrel, there is already loss of light. All macro lens aperture will change at 1:1.

Oh yeah! stupid me, didn't think of this simple logic.

Currently seems like 105 and 150 fits my range best,
but i suspect it wouldn't be too useful as mostly I shoot food n miniature stuffs,
insects will be of second priority...

anybody has hands on experience with the 60 & 90?

[calebk]

Then perhaps the 90 or 105 will fit better. 60 will be short for bugs (though I know some CS-ers who have shot bugs with the 60mm).

[ortega]

the tamron 90 is a nice macro lens for ppl on a budget, half the price but not half the quality
http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=199617

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Originally Posted by ortega the tamron 90 is a nice macro lens for ppl on a budget, half the price but not half the quality http://forum.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=199617

yup...

after that can upgrade to 105 f2.8 VR.

there is no 1 best macro... i have a 50 & a 100, waiting to lay my hands on a 200...

[scaredcloud]

Thanks guys!
really appreciate your advices.

Pretty much fixed on 60 or 90 already.
Will go down to MS to try the 60 & 90 tomorrow then decide.
Of coz will benchmark to Ortega's photos on the 90 review.

wish me luck!

[bedrock]

i would go for 90 or 105 ... as 60mm seems to be little too short unless you shooting still objects most of the time.

i uses a Tamron 90mm and is happy with the performance. Also consider a 2x teleconverter while you at the shop?