Which Macro Lens?

[fv18m]

Calling on fellow CSer,

Please advise on which Macro satisfies both Pic Quality & Afordable cost criteria... Looking for a Macro lens for mainly Flower shoots (not so much into living creatures, at least for now).

Tamron 90mm
Nikon 105mm
Tokina 100mm
Sigma...?

Budget bout $500 - $800. Looking for one with good re-sale opportunity say 1 year down the road (if I get deeper into it, and wanna upgrade, or decided that I am so screwed up that I dun wanna do Macro anymore...

 

[Kensuke]

Why no Canon brand ... ;p

 

[Rashkae]

What mount? Canon? Nikon? Sonolta? Pentax?

 

[jbma]

Calling on fellow CSer,

Please advise on which Macro satisfies both Pic Quality & Afordable cost criteria... Looking for a Macro lens for mainly Flower shoots (not so much into living creatures, at least for now).

Tamron 90mm
Nikon 105mm
Tokina 100mm
Sigma...?

Budget bout $500 - $800. Looking for one with good re-sale opportunity say 1 year down the road (if I get deeper into it, and wanna upgrade, or decided that I am so screwed up that I dun wanna do Macro anymore...

i think for your budget of 500-800 you can forget about Canon or Nikon.

 

[Jinks]

Why not a Nikon 60mm Micro? At $600+, it'll be within your budget. If you're using the lens for capturing shots of flora, you'd prob not need the extra working distance of the 105mm?

My 2 cents...

 

[zhikang]

Tamron 90! Seen the lens, felt the lens, used the lens, seen shots with the lens. HOLY! 1:1 magnification also... =D

 

[metallilan]

I guess the Tamron 90mm would fit the bill. Although i preferred the more robust build of the Tokina 100mm. Took some pics(not all) with the Tokina 100mm last week... http://metallilan.multiply.com/photos/album/65

P.s. The dragonfly pic was taken with a 2x tc i think.

 

[piglet_oinkoink]

Go for Tamron 90mm. :thumbsup:

 

[xunjas]

canon ef-s 60mm lens...

 

[TMC]

try picking up an old Ais version of the 105. The 105/2.8 with PN-11 rocks but sold for the VR version which is good but not value for money. Going to put the 105/4 through the steps tomorrow.

 

[uy_uil]

canon ef-s 60mm lens...

I think if the TS have mentioned a Nikon lens (the 105mm), he/she should be having a Nikon body. =)

for TS, if you're purely into flowers etc, you may want to consider the Nikon 60mm Micro too.
Allows you to go nearer to the subject (not a prob, unless you shoot insects etc.)
Its a very fine lens too!

 

[megaweb]

All macro lens are good and sharp inclusive of 3rd party. Try Tamron 90mm.

 

[ExplorerZ]

I go for sigma 105 if not for the higher price tag... The lowest CA among all if im not wrong... as for sharpness all of them are more or less the same, and so needless to compare. :thumbsup:

 

[fv18m]

Apologies to all (for not including Canon's lenses in the example)... Forgot to include my "Body"... It's a Nikon D80. Good guess :thumbsup: by uy_uil.

Ohh Yup... Forgot bout Canon. But wait. This is not to discuss about Canon/ Nikon. So Canon users, please include your recommendations for Canon also. Although I think 3rd party lens recommendations will be of more relevance to users of any systems.

 

[ipin]

3rd party, I'd say Tamron 90mm.

 

[metallilan]

I did a not-very concise comparison between the Nikon 105VR and my Tokina 100mm Macro lens... just a quick shot using the same settings.

 

[fv18m]

Bro,

please enlighten why is it that the Tokina seems to capture a clearer subject (the glass), whereas the Nikon "lost" a portion of the glass?

I did a not-very concise comparison between the Nikon 105VR and my Tokina 100mm Macro lens... just a quick shot using the same settings.

 

[metallilan]

Bro,

please enlighten why is it that the Tokina seems to capture a clearer subject (the glass), whereas the Nikon "lost" a portion of the glass?

Hmm. I think because the Nikon is 5mm more than the Tokina? (in 35mm Nikon is 157.5 while the Tokina is 150)

Or maybe its because i shifted position when i changed lens :bsmilie: Not a very good comparison really. So don't take the test too hard..

Settings for the 105VR was f/3.2 1/15, while the Tokina is f/3.2 1/20, ISO 400.

 

[ExplorerZ]

Hmm. I think because the Nikon is 5mm more than the Tokina? (in 35mm Nikon is 157.5 while the Tokina is 150)

Or maybe its because i shifted position when i changed lens :bsmilie: Not a very good comparison really. So don't take the test too hard..

Settings for the 105VR was f/3.2 1/15, while the Tokina is f/3.2 1/20, ISO 400.

obviously the angle is shifted by quite a lot...

 

[oryzain]

Nikon 105 VR f2.8 micro is a very nice piece of glass. I have not used the Tamron 90mm, but I guess it is also quite good.....