Recommendation of Macro Lens

[hirowen]

Anybody can recommend me any macro len if my budget is $300 ?

 

[Astin]

A bit tough on your budget, the nearest I think is a 2nd hand Nikon 60mm micro.

 

[nightwolf75]

A bit tough on your budget, the nearest I think is a 2nd hand Nikon 60mm micro.

nah... the latest offering from kettobase is a minimum of $530, IIRC.

come to think of it... unless u are getting the sigma 70-200 zoom with macro function, there's no dedicated macro lens (AF or otherwise) dats anywhere near the $300 budget, AFAIK. :think:

 

[zac08]

Well, the cheapest option IMO is to reverse a standard 50mm lens...

 

[Snoweagle]

Anybody can recommend me any macro len if my budget is $300 ?

With your budget u can't get a macro lens unless as said, reverse macro. Al you need is a reverse ring adapter.

 

[hirowen]

Oic! So whats the average price for a average micro lens and zoom lens? Sorry, i'm a newbie here

 

[valice]

A Tamron 90mm will cost around 570, a Sigma 105mm will cost around 500+ and a Canon 100mm USM will cost slightly below 900.. These are first hand prices... The second hands will probably be cheaper... Not sure of Nikon's macro lenses, as I am a Canon user...

For your fish photography, get your flash and ST-E2 wireless transmitter (if you using Canon) before investing in your lens... Your kit lens can still take good pictures with a flash and wireless transmitter (for Canon)... For Nikon, you can rely on Nikon's commander mode to do wireless flash...

 

[kettobase]

nah... the latest offering from kettobase is a minimum of $530, IIRC.

come to think of it... unless u are getting the sigma 70-200 zoom with macro function, there's no dedicated macro lens (AF or otherwise) dats anywhere near the $300 budget, AFAIK. :think:

thanks for promoting me..... btw this lense i am selling 60mm 2.8d will be 1 month old on 4th April. Closing date of the bid for the lense......
selling it as i hardly touched it since i've gotten my 18-200 VRII 2 weeks ago.

 

[Snoweagle]

So hirowen, u've to up your budget. Remember that photography can be an expensive investment.

 

[Xing]

if you are shooting close-ups of flowers, products or any inanimate objects (when working distance is an issue), I recommend the Sigma 50mm, which gives you a 1:1 close up. Good enough for handheld. If you want bugs, get a 90/105 or even longer like 150/180.

Well for your budget, the Sigma 50mm is going for ~$420 new, or $300+ 2nd hand.

 

[Snoweagle]

I recommend 2 lens. The Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro and Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

Both lens are very sharp but the Tamron have a noisier motor with protruding front barrel when focusing which may scare away insect even in manual focusing. The Canon one is all internal and extremely silent due to USM in AF mode.

 

[hirowen]

if i am using a nikon d50, which third party lens can i turn in to?

Valice,
are you from AQ? and what do you mean by wireless flash?

 

[valice]

if i am using a nikon d50, which third party lens can i turn in to?

Valice,
are you from AQ? and what do you mean by wireless flash?

All 3rd party lens can be used on a Nikon... You just need to specify for a Nikon mount...

Yup, I am from AQ... You can check out the photography section of the forum too... We doing quite alot of fish photography...

 

[tltan]

if i am using a nikon d50, which third party lens can i turn in to?

Valice,
are you from AQ? and what do you mean by wireless flash?

Tamron 90mm. Good.
Otherwise get 105 second hand from buy and sell. A lot of ppl selling these days due to VR version just being released. Those old 105 can still be used.

Regards,
tltan

 

[aaron80]

Both the tamron 90mm and sigma 105mm is gd and still considered affordable. I have tried both before, u can go for sigma 105mm if you intend to shoot bugs, insects etc, it has a slight range advantage compared to the tamron..

 

[ywh]

I would rec the secondhand Tamron 90 or Sigma 105. There is no point in paying the same price for a 60mm Nikon unless you are so biased against third party stuff. The 3rd party macros have always given the originals a real good run for their money and I have never ever seen anyone able to differentiate images from one lens to the other.

Regarding the advice of flash and ST-E2....the ST-E2 is a luxury but not needed in macro. Get the off-camera flash cord and a bracket to hold the flash instead. I would go for the lens first but the flash would be a close second.

 

[aaron80]

hirowen, i think the sigma 50mm is the nearest to your budget.. Its quite a gd lens and can definitely hold its own against the nikon 60mm which is more ex..

 

[Snoweagle]

Yupz, or the Tamron 90mm one.

 

[hirowen]

Hey guys. Thanks for all ur rec! However, after so many info bomb into my head, i start confusing again. How u guys know the lens is a macro lens by looking at the focal length? Or is it that u guys looking at other factor. How about its aperture?

 

[nightwolf75]

Hey guys. Thanks for all ur rec! However, after so many info bomb into my head, i start confusing again. How u guys know the lens is a macro lens by looking at the focal length? Or is it that u guys looking at other factor. How about its aperture?

no... not exactly.

macro/micro lenses often indicate magnifaction factor - dedicated macro/micro lenses are 1:1; ie life size. if u see 1:2, 1:3.5 etc... it means the lenses happened (IMO) to have macro function. they won't give u 1:1 life-size magnification - ie u can't really fill the whole pic with the subject.

oh... and of course, dedicated macro lenses cost a heck lot more than lenses with macro... in case u haven't noticed by now... keke... :bsmilie:

caveat - since u are a nikon user, nikon (for some reason) call their lenses micro lenses. they are the same as macro lenses. if u happened to buy the old manual focusing micro lenses, most won't give u 1:1 without the nikon PK-tubes. but, since u are using a d50, i doubt these lenses will be under ur consideration.