Macro lens for Nikon?

about to extinct

D
about to extinct

  • 0
  • 0
  • 58
Fantasyland!

D
Fantasyland!

  • 9
  • 2
  • 121
perfect cirkel

D
perfect cirkel

  • 2
  • 1
  • 125
Thomas J Walls cafe.

A
Thomas J Walls cafe.

  • 4
  • 8
  • 303

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,748
Messages
2,780,319
Members
99,693
Latest member
lachanalia
Recent bookmarks
1

Steve Mack

Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
142
Location
Dillwyn, Vir
Format
35mm
I am looking for some advice as to the best choice for macro work with flowers. I see that I have a choice of the 60mm or the 105. Can someone help me out here? I use an F100 and an N80. Or is there some other lens that I haven't mentioned?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen
 

tkamiya

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
4,284
Location
Central Flor
Format
Multi Format
What's your budget and requirement?

I have a 105mm f/2.8G VR. It's an incredibly sharp lens even wide open but quite heavy. I chose this one over shorter focal length because I wanted some working distance. I also wanted to use it for portrait and I have not been disappointed.
 

wotalegend

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
360
Location
Melbourne (t
Format
Multi Format
If you are happy to go with manual focus, which is preferable with macro anyway, there is a 55/2.8 AI-S lens which is plentiful, cheap, and razor-sharp.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
Stationary object that range from very tiny - requiring > 1:1 magnification, to very large that you need to put distance between you and the target . . . There are some lenses, closeup filters, extension tubes and bellows that may be appropriate for you to use.
 

John Koehrer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,276
Location
Aurora, Il
Format
Multi Format
In manual focus there were four.55/3.5 55/2.8 105/2.8 and 200/4
 

jp498

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
1,525
Location
Owls Head ME
Format
Multi Format
I like the 55 micro f3.5. Sometimes available <$100. Sharp, better looking backgrounds than the 60/2.8 d-af.
 

Bob-D659

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,273
Location
Winnipeg, Ca
Format
Multi Format
The 200 f4 is very nice for flowers, good working distance, 2:1 with internal focusing.
 

Pgeobc

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
122
Location
Indian Terri
Format
Multi Format
Whatever version of the 105 suits your budget, your fancy, and your camera. If you have the bucks, the 200mm medical micro-nikkor is great because of the working distance. However, it is heavy.
 

j-dogg

Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
1,542
Location
Floor-it-duh
Format
Multi Format
If you are happy to go with manual focus, which is preferable with macro anyway, there is a 55/2.8 AI-S lens which is plentiful, cheap, and razor-sharp.

This and also a f3.5 non-AI version which I own. 1:1 reproduction, but it's non-AI which means I think you're screwed unless using manual mode. I put it on my buddie's d3000 d*****l and I could snap a photo in manual mode with it
 

Pumalite

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
1,078
Location
Here & Now
Format
Multi Format
I'm also fond of the 200/4
 

mhcfires

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
593
Location
El Cajon, CA
Format
Multi Format
I recently bought a new Nikkor af 105 2.8G. I bought it to use with my D700, but find that I'm using it more with my N80. It may be heavy,but it is a wonderful, tack sharp lens. I use most of my lenses in manual mode.
 

Jim Noel

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,261
Format
Large Format
One of the best ever - 55mm Micro-Nikkor
 

Marc Akemann

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
1,274
Location
Michigan
Format
Multi Format
About 10 years ago I purchased a Kiron 105/2.8 Macro lens that goes 1:1 without an adapter (for my Nikon). It was only $75 and I thought of it as a stand-in until I purchased an actual Nikon 'Micro' Nikkor. A decade later I'm still using this most excellent Kiron lens. Unfortunately (for a buyer), they're going for a bit more than $75 these days but is still worth it.

I also have the 55/2.8 and 200/4 Micro-Nikkors and find that I use the Kiron more often. With the 105, I like the distance between subject & lens and the way the background is rendered when compared to the 55. The 200 is nice but I continue to go with the 105. It's just right (for me). Good luck!

Marc
 
Last edited by a moderator:

narsuitus

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
1,813
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
With film, I used my 105mm Nikon macro lens more than my 55mm Nikon macro. With my APS sized digital body, I find myself using the 55mm macro more than the 105mm macro.
 

2F/2F

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
8,031
Location
Los Angeles,
Format
Multi Format
This and also a f3.5 non-AI version which I own. 1:1 reproduction, but it's non-AI which means I think you're screwed unless using manual mode. I put it on my buddie's d3000 d*****l and I could snap a photo in manual mode with it

It is worse than being screwed in regards to metering modes and what have you. It simply will not mount on some cameras without breaking them. You need a camera with no AI ring (e.g. F, Nikkormat, D40), or one with an AI tab that flips out of the way (e.g. late F2, F3).
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom