21 replies to this topic

[scoobymax]

Hi guys looking for some help and advice! I'm looking to a buy a macro lens for my D3100 and am baffled by the choice. I am on a fairly limited budget and would like a good macro to shoot small insects and various close ups, would you recommend a true macro lens or a set of extension tubes? If so which one(s) would anyone recommend ? Thanks in advance.

[Afterimage]

I started off with macro tubes and they do work pretty darn well. For the cost ($45?) you can turn any lens into a macro. But, like anything else, there's a trade off. With the macro tubes attached I found that finding the focus point was difficult, you loose the ability to shoot anything more than 3-4 inches away, and the working distance was very small.

 

This summer I bought a Tamron 60mm f/2 macro and I absolutely LOVE this little lens. It's sooo sharp, produces excellent bokeh, and it's faster than most other macro lenses out there. Best of all, it's inexpensive. I picked mine up for around $300.

 

Here's just a sample of what I've taken with this lens...

 

 

Here's a shot taken with the Nikkor 18-105mm with macro tubes. Not bad actually but they are a bit "fiddly" to use:

 

[scoobymax]

Wow! these are great and just the sort of thing i want! I had been looking around at macro tubes as im on a fairly restricted budget so for me I think they are the ones for i will go for, as much as I would like a true macro lens. If that's the sort of picture you can get then I don't mind them being a bit tricky.As far as the trade off is concerned that's what i expected going for the cheaper option. I will keep an eye out for some deals and see what comes along Thank you for the advice given and the great pics!

[Afterimage]

Yeah, they are a great starting point. They sure teach you a lot about patience, setup, lighting, DOF and just how steady your hands are. LOL

 

My advise is to get a good set of inexpensive macro tubes. Don't spend a whole lot because you will out grow them eventually.

I have the Zeikos set and I think I paid $50 for them. They are plastic barreled with the AF and focus confirmation leads. Perfect for messing around with and tossing in the camera bag.

[leCabri]

Each time I have been trying to save money on lens there has only one possible end: I shortly sell the cheap lens to buy something better.

Maybe try to buy a good lens used?

[scoobymax]

Thanks for the advice guys, think I will try the macro tubes for now and see how I get on, rather lose £50 than £350!

[CastlePrints]

Hi guys. I have a D3100 and I am trying to find a lens that is kind of an allrounder. I have a Nikkor 18-55mm and a Sigma 150-500mm for this camera but I'm trying to find a smaller lens that will do landscapes, portrait, macro and anything else I throw at it. Basically a lens that I can leave on and get away with if I don't have the bigger ones. Also needs to be good in low light.

Cheers

[Afterimage]

Unfortunately you are asking for a lens that does not necessarily exist. Low light, wide, telephoto, marco and sharp in one body I think may be against the laws of physics LOL. There are decent "all arounder lenses" but none are good in low light. There are good fast zooms but they are limited in reach.

 

Here's 3 that I think might be in the ballpark of what you are looking for.

 

Tamron 17-50 SP DiII VR f/2.8 - It's fast, will do nice portraits, is fairly wide but is limited in the telephoto and macro categories.

 

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8 - 4.0 - like above, it gives a little more reach, not good for macro and the f/stop falls from 2.8 to 4.0 as you zoom out.

 

Sigma 18-250 OS Macro f3.5 - 5.6 - This is the closest to what you described above. It's zoom range covers wide to telephoto, it does a respectable job at macro work but it is not good in low light and the image quality is average.

 

There are other lenses out there but they will all do 1 thing better than the other. Lenses are a balance between many functions and it's nearly impossible to make one that does it all well. If such a lens existed it would be wildly expensive. 

[CastlePrints]

Afterimage, Thank you for your feedback. It was very useful. It at least has pointed me in the right direction to know what to look at. Now I have to go over to the flash section and learn the difference between a slave flash and a speedlite flash lol. Thanks again

Kim

[Afterimage]

No problem at all. Glad I was coherent enough that my post made sense LOL

[iNYONi]

I got the Tamron 70-300 zoom Macro from Jessops, it's still on offer for £99,  I've had some good results from it. I would like to get a dedicated macro but the Tamron is 2 lenses in one and will do until I can afford to upgrade.

[Adam]

The tampon 90mm macro lens is a great choice if you want a dedicated lens with life size magnification.

[BeerBelly]

The tampon 90mm macro lens...

 

This has got to be one of the best typos I've seen

 

Just so I won't be completely off-topic. I think the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 70mm Macros are well worth investigating into.

[PrettyCranium]

This has got to be one of the best typos I've seen

 

Just so I won't be completely off-topic. I think the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 70mm Macros are well worth investigating into.

LOL.

 

I have to recommend the 105mm Nikon Micro.  More expensive than some alternatives, but an awesome lens.

[Merco_61]

Why not an old manual micronikkor like the 55/3.5 or 55/2.8? They won't meter on a D3100, but you can always do test shots and look at the histogram. This kind of limitation is even good for learning to estimate light levels and understand light. They are quite cheap, even at Gray's you can find them in EXC or even EXC+ for ~£150.

 

The problem with extension tubes is that they steal light, and the viewfinder on the D3100 is not the brightest even under the best conditions. To get to 1:2 with a 18-55 at 55 mm you would need about 18 mm of extension, which gives an wide open aperture of about 7.

[roseshutterbug]

Hello!

I have a Nikon D3100 and am looking for a macro lens.  I love landscape photography best and am interested in capturing the smaller details of the outdoors.  I have looked at the Tamron SP90MM (Model F017), but wondering if that's too much lens for just an amateur photographer like myself...just looking to enjoy capturing the outdoors "up close".  From the limited research I have conducted so far, it appears that macro lenses are good for more than just up close and personal photos, so that's attractive to me as well.  I am seeing a price range from $650 to $1K for this lens, so also wondering if there's another brand or model that would work well for me on my Nikon D3100.  

I am not terribly well-versed on the technical terms, so any information that would point me to a lens (or more) would be great!  I'm also wondering if anyone could direct me to the best source for a macro lens.  Camera stores are kind of a thing of the past it seems and the idea of spending this kind of money online makes me nervous unless someone can recommend a reputable source for lenses (please).

Thank you in advance for your help!

[tonyzoc]

Hello!
I have a Nikon D3100 and am looking for a macro lens. I love landscape photography best and am interested in capturing the smaller details of the outdoors. I have looked at the Tamron SP90MM (Model F017), but wondering if that's too much lens for just an amateur photographer like myself...just looking to enjoy capturing the outdoors "up close". From the limited research I have conducted so far, it appears that macro lenses are good for more than just up close and personal photos, so that's attractive to me as well. I am seeing a price range from $650 to $1K for this lens, so also wondering if there's another brand or model that would work well for me on my Nikon D3100.
I am not terribly well-versed on the technical terms, so any information that would point me to a lens (or more) would be great! I'm also wondering if anyone could direct me to the best source for a macro lens. Camera stores are kind of a thing of the past it seems and the idea of spending this kind of money online makes me nervous unless someone can recommend a reputable source for lenses (please).
Thank you in advance for your help!

You can get the Nikon DX Micro 40mm/2.8 G for under $300 from B&H. It has good reviews, 1:1 macro and is wide enough to be used for landscapes. If you want more distance between you and the subject (say a bee or wasp) then look to the 105/2.8 micro...which runs just under $1000 new.

Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G Lens https://www.bhphotov..._2_8G_AF_S.html

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Merco_61]

… or the 85 mm DX macro. https://www.bhphotov...R.html/overview

The only problem with the 85 is if you decide to go FX and sell off your current body. If you stay with the smaller sensor, even if you go mirrorless in the future, the 85 will work.

As to dealer recommendations, B&H have a solid reputation and have had it for many years. Just make sure that the product you find have a manufacturer’s warranty as they sell both US market and gray market lenses. If it says B&H warranty, it is a gray import. 
 

The Tamron 90 is one of the best autofocus macro lenses, but it is expensive for the hobbyist. 
 

Pete uses his 85 on a D3300 now and then in the 365 challenge thread. 365 challenge - Page 48 - Mini-Challenges, Member Contests, and Games - NikonForums.com

[Ron]

These are solid suggestions and I can second (third?) B&H photo. I have purchased from them for decades and they've always delivered (pun intended). Also the AF-S 40mm f/2.8DX Nikon lens is very good, and a good value.

 

A couple of things about macro lenses. With shorter macro lenses (Nikon calls them Micro Nikkors if you buy their brand) lighting can be a problem because you're often very close to your subject. This isn't always a problem outside but inside, or outside in shade, it can be. Longer lenses allow you to move back and let the sun (or inside ambient light) help. Unfortunately, longer focal length macro lenses tend to be more expensive, sometimes much more expensive.

 

Also, as Peter pointed out, FX lenses are usually a better choice because they allow you to upgrade your camera without having to reinvest in a new full frame macro lens.

 

There's more, of course.... but you knew that. We've barely scratched the surface of macro photography. Don't even get me started on flash macro photography!

 

--Ron

[Merco_61]

 Unfortunately, longer focal length macro lenses tend to be more expensive, sometimes much more expensive.

 

--Ron

I don't want to think about what the latest two I have bought cost... Z MC 105/2.8 S and a 120 Makro Planar for the Rollei... The Z-mount is by far the cheaper, even though the Zeiss is nearly 20 years old.