# Inexpensive Macro Lens



## ~myStical~ (Aug 15, 2011)

Hello guys ,
I am looking to buy a macro lens for my nikon d90 body . After doing some research I've come across the _Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro_ , which seems affordable but before i go on and purchase one I was wondering if there are any other good inexpensive macro lens I can look in to. Possibly something cheaper than the Sigma 70-300 .


----------



## MTVision (Aug 15, 2011)

Would you want a smaller lens? Nikon has a new 40mm macro that is around 260. I don't believe the 70-300 is true 1:1 macro but don't take my word on it!


----------



## Overread (Aug 15, 2011)

It's a good lens for its price point, giving decent performance whilst also having a strong close up shooting mode (marketing called macro). However it's macro is only close focusing, not true macro and this can be an important point depending on what you want to take photos of. 

for larger subjects such as flowers, the 70-300mm is an ideal option indeed. Whilst if you want smaller subjects, such as insects, then you'll want a true macro capable lens. These are more expensive, though you can get the effect (ie same magnification) more cheaply by using a set of Kenko Extension tubes between your kit lens and the camera (which will get you just over 1:1 magnification, which is what true macro lenses get).

For a real world idea this is what the 70-300mm can get at its best (0.5:1 magnificaiton)






Whilst this is what a true macro capable lens can do (1:1) or what a kit lens with extension tubes can do:






Maths bit:
1:1 means::  The size of the subject as reflected on the sensor by the lens:the size of the subject in real life. 

Extension tubes magnification calculation
length of extension tubes in mm (stated on the tubes) - divided by - focal length of the lens = magnification : 1

eg a kit lens at 50mm setting on the zoom with 50mm of extension tubes would give you:
50/50 = 1:1 (ie same as the true macro lenses).



Note kit lenses with extension tubes will have a very short distance between subject and the lens, whilst true macro lenses typically give you more distance to work with, they are of course more expensive.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 15, 2011)

Not my thread but I have a question for you Overread. Would I be better of getting the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and extension tubes OR the 40mm macro? I would like to be able to get nice macro pictures but thats not all I want to do and I have a limited budget.


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Aug 15, 2011)

40mm 2.8


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 15, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Not my thread but I have a question for you Overread. Would I be better of getting the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and extension tubes OR the 40mm macro? I would like to be able to get nice macro pictures but thats not all I want to do and I have a limited budget.



Tough call!

Limited budget suggests the 50 & tubes.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 15, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Not my thread but I have a question for you Overread. Would I be better of getting the 50mm 1.8 prime lens and extension tubes OR the 40mm macro? I would like to be able to get nice macro pictures but thats not all I want to do and I have a limited budget.
> ...


Limited was the wrong word. I have money to spend but I don't want to spend an outrageous amount for my first lens.  I'm new at all this and only have kit lense and I just want a better lens to work with. One that's good for portraits and can do OK macro. I was planning on buying the 50 but then I saw the 40mm micro. Not sure which was a better fit. Ive never used extension tubes or seen a picture taken with them.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Aug 15, 2011)

Overread said:


> It's a good lens for its price point, giving decent performance whilst also having a strong close up shooting mode (marketing called macro). However it's macro is only close focusing, not true macro and this can be an important point depending on what you want to take photos of.
> 
> for larger subjects such as flowers, the 70-300mm is an ideal option indeed. Whilst if you want smaller subjects, such as insects, then you'll want a true macro capable lens. These are more expensive, though you can get the effect (ie same magnification) more cheaply by using a set of Kenko Extension tubes between your kit lens and the camera (which will get you just over 1:1 magnification, which is what true macro lenses get).
> 
> ...




I want to shoot flowers and water drops . Water drops on flowers and such. I love the second photo you posted. Nice bokeh and so sharp and focused. With the 70-300mm i can't get anything close to your second photo ?


----------



## ~myStical~ (Aug 15, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Would you want a smaller lens? Nikon has a new 40mm macro that is around 260. I don't believe the 70-300 is true 1:1 macro but don't take my word on it!



Is the 70-300 like telephoto zoom lens then ?  I just looked up the 40mm macro . I feel like its going to be similar to my 50mm f1.8 .


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 15, 2011)

Well MT, I have posted these examples a few times before but this is what can be done with a 50 on tubes.  






















This was a Minolta 50/1.7 on increasing lengths of a three tube set.


----------



## MTVision (Aug 15, 2011)

~myStical~ said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> > Would you want a smaller lens? Nikon has a new 40mm macro that is around 260. I don't believe the 70-300 is true 1:1 macro but don't take my word on it!
> ...


I think it is basically a telephoto lens. I can get similar photos like overreads 1st image with my 55mm-300mm kit lens. Not as good as but close. For water droplets you'll need a true macro or extension tubes which would produce pictures like the last images posted. The 40mm will be very similar to your 50mm but since it's a designated macro (micro in Nikon) I would think you would be able to get closer to/if not true macro. I'm just giving you my opinion - I'm no expert by any means. Extension tubes aren't super expensive if you wanted to try those.


----------



## Overread (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't know anything about the Nikon 40mm macro, however I do use a Tokina 35mm macro so the working distances will be very similar. These lenses, whilst getting to the 1:1 magnification give you very little room between lens and subject, something that you do need with waterdrop type photography. In addition the short working distances makes a big challenge for lighting the subjects located so close to the lens. 

In an ideal world Id say a Tamron 90mm macro or a longer focal length macro lens would be the best approach - followed up by a Nikon 60mm macro or Sigma 70mm macro. These lenses, whilst more expensive and specialist, will give you more distance to work with, which makes lighting a lot easier and also reduces the chances for slashes hitting the lens.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Aug 21, 2011)

Still not sure what to get  . I want to spend around 200.

Question .... what's the difference between Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro 
And Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro .
Is it just the brand?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 21, 2011)

~myStical~ said:


> Still not sure what to get  . *I want to spend around 200*.
> 
> Question .... what's the difference between Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro
> And Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro .
> Is it just the brand?



Kenko tubes and the lens you have.


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 22, 2011)

Here is an example of one of my Soviet 50s on a 12mm tube.








This is a crop of the above


----------



## Dao (Aug 22, 2011)

For low cost dedicated macro lens, you may want to look for Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro lens.  I do not think they make the lens anymore, but I saw it listed once in awhile on craigslist as well as ebay.  If you find one, make sure the lens comes with a diopter.  With the diopter, it is capable of 1:1 macro.  From what I read on the net, build quality is only 2 out of 5 stars, but it is quite good optically.  For a little over $100 new, I think it is a bargain.

This is the flickr group and you will see a lot of examples there.
Flickr: The Cosina 100mm f/3.5 Macro Pool

Cosina also make the lens for other company, so you may also look for Vivitar, Promaster, Phoenix ...


Reviews:
Vivitar Lens: Primes - Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 AF Macro - SLRgear.com!
Phoenix AF 100mm f/3.4 Macro Lens - A Nikonians Product Review
Cosina AF 100mm f/3.5 macro (Pentax) - Review / Lab Test Report


A search in ebay yields few Nikon mount lenses there.
100mm f 3.5 macro | eBay


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 22, 2011)

Something else one may consider is the use of a Raynox DCR 150 or 250 clip-on close-up lens.  They sell for about $80 & will clip onto the front of most lenses.  I just took a quick shot of a raisin with a DCR 150 on a Vivitar 135/2.8 @ f14 & 1/4s.  The distance from the lens to the subject is 7"/18cm.









This is the full image, no cropping.


----------



## baturn (Aug 22, 2011)

Canon also makes a Macro "lens" that screws on like a filter. Comes in different sizes to fit most lenses. Don't think it gives true1:1 but I used one for awhile and IQ was quite good.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Aug 22, 2011)

> Kenko tubes and the lens you have.



Kenko tube ? On what lens ? i  have a 50mm prime lens.


----------



## ~myStical~ (Aug 22, 2011)

Dao said:


> For low cost dedicated macro lens, you may want to look for Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro lens.  I do not think they make the lens anymore, but I saw it listed once in awhile on craigslist as well as ebay.  If you find one, make sure the lens comes with a diopter.  With the diopter, it is capable of 1:1 macro.  From what I read on the net, build quality is only 2 out of 5 stars, but it is quite good optically.  For a little over $100 new, I think it is a bargain.
> 
> This is the flickr group and you will see a lot of examples there.
> Flickr: The Cosina 100mm f/3.5 Macro Pool
> ...



Thank you so much . I am going to look into these now :-D


----------



## ~myStical~ (Aug 22, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> Something else one may consider is the use of a  Raynox DCR 150 or 250 clip-on close-up lens.  They sell for about $80  & will clip onto the front of most lenses.  I just took a quick shot  of a raisin with a DCR 150 on a Vivitar 135/2.8 @ f14 & 1/4s.  The  distance from the lens to the subject is 7"/18cm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is pretty nice too , will the Raynox DCR 150 be  compatible on a 50mm lens ?


----------



## Ron Evers (Aug 22, 2011)

~myStical~ said:


> This is pretty nice too , will the Raynox DCR 150 be  compatible on a 50mm lens ?



Yes, any focal length.  You have less working distance with wider lenses than longer ones.


----------



## Overread (Aug 22, 2011)

The Raynox will fit provided that the screwthread/filter thread of the lens is  a suitable size for the clipon adaptor. If its not you can use stepping rings (cheap on ebay) to allow the adaptor to fit onto the lens. 

However the Raynox (and other similar close up lens attachments) give less magnification when used on a short focal length lens as when used on a long one. For 50mm I would personally use a set of Kenko extension tubes to get maximum magnification gain rather than the clip on Raynox adaptors - that is at least to get pure magnification gain; image quality wise they are very similar.


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 23, 2011)

105mm f4 ais micro nikkor, manual focus lens.  They sell for $150 or less on ebay. The f2.8 version is even better but typically sells for $75 more.It won't meter or auto focus on the d90, but that isn't as big of deal as you may think.  The optics are excellent, and the 105mm focal length gives you a much better operating distance then the shorter macro lenses.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Aug 23, 2011)

What is a good extension tube for Nikkor 18-105mm?


----------

