# Cheap macro lens for nikon ?



## Wesche (Jan 3, 2011)

I recently got my D3100, and I use the lens it comes with, but I really like macro photography. So a nice lens would come in handy, but Im a noob at this, so what are some choices I have for cheap macro lens. From what I read, I belive a 90-105mm, but im no expert correct me if im wrong.


----------



## dylanstraub (Jan 3, 2011)

You shouldn't buy a lens because it's cheap because it will always disappoint you in the long run (IMHO). If you don't have a lot of cash to spare it might be a good idea to start pricing decent used lenses. As to what lens you should get, I'll let the Nikonians here give you some advice on that one.


----------



## jcrob33 (Jan 4, 2011)

meh, depends on how much you want to spend.  But I went the "Cheaper" route and couldn't be happier with my decision. 

I'm sure I'll but a nice one some day, butfor now, No need.

Go get a Sigma 70 - 300mm 

Amazon.com: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SLD DG Macro Lens with built in motor for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
Just over $150 new.

I bought one slightly used for $75 on craigslist.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 4, 2011)

Wesche said:


> I recently got my D3100, and I use the lens it comes with, but I really like macro photography. So a nice lens would come in handy, but Im a noob at this, so what are some choices I have for cheap macro lens. From what I read, I belive a 90-105mm, but im no expert correct me if im wrong.



If you want to start cheaply, buy some extension tube (read and look here). Depending on the kind of macro you like, even a reverse adapter ring might be good (for mounting your lens on the contrary). Beware of zooms declared as macro but that do not allow true macro (which by definition is at least 1:1 magnification).


----------



## redtippmann (Jan 4, 2011)

You can reverse mount a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and that becomes a great little macro.


----------



## digital flower (Jan 4, 2011)

I am not sure what cheap is here but the 60mm Nikkor-Micro 2.8 is very reasonable (about $400US/$300 used). It is a great lens that can be used as a walk around lens also.


----------



## peke (Jan 4, 2011)

sorry for butting in but I had the same questions on a cheap macro lens. I have the D3000 though and I have the kit lens and the 55-200. I was told for hummingbirds a 105 F2.8 will work well but at this time $400 plus(for sigma) or $900 plus for nikon is too much (just starting out and husband is not on board spending $400 plus). 
 Would extension tubes work for the set up and lenses I have to capture hummingbirds? Would it be a waste of money? I would like to get the best possible photos with them in flight without spending $$$ or starting world war II in my home LOL

Thanks


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 4, 2011)

peke said:


> Would extension tubes work for the set up and lenses I have to capture  hummingbirds? Would it be a waste of money? I would like to get the best  possible photos with them in flight without spending $$$ or starting  world war II in my home LOL
> 
> Thanks



I would like to refer to Buckster's post here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...sensus-macro-extension-tubes.html#post2113468

He convinced me to get extension tubes even though I'm also going to get a macro lens.  And I did just that... the Kenko's should be here tomorrow  The tubes on the macro lens will give you greater than 1:1 as shown in his post.


----------



## peke (Jan 4, 2011)

Thanks. I wish I could get the macro but its just not in this families budget right now. It would just be the extensions for my 55-200 or kit lens. But I'm not sure if just doing that would get me any better photos of a hummingbird in flight or just be a waste of money.  I do see that someone on that thread used the extensions on the 55-200 lens, nice photos.
 I can't wait to see your photos with your new set up! Enjoy!


----------



## el_shorty (Jan 4, 2011)

peke said:


> sorry for butting in but I had the same questions on a cheap macro lens. I have the D3000 though and I have the kit lens and the 55-200. I was told for hummingbirds a 105 F2.8 will work well but at this time $400 plus(for sigma) or $900 plus for nikon is too much (just starting out and husband is not on board spending $400 plus).
> Would extension tubes work for the set up and lenses I have to capture hummingbirds? Would it be a waste of money? I would like to get the best possible photos with them in flight without spending $$$ or starting world war II in my home LOL
> 
> Thanks



For photographing hummingbirds you don't need a macro lens, your 55-200 should work fine for that, what you need is a flash.
Here is a link on photographing hummingbirds that might be useful for you Hummingbird Photography Guide Part 1 - High Speed Flash - Ralph Paonessa Photography Workshops & Photo Tours


----------



## peke (Jan 4, 2011)

thank you. In the beginning that's what I thought from what I have read but after going to kits cameras and talking with a rep, she said that the flash would not help me at all without a macro lens about 105mm F2.8. Being a newbie with all things photography I took her word for it. I came home researched the lens and wasn't expecting the cost. DH said nope not happening LOL


----------



## el_shorty (Jan 4, 2011)

Not everyone who works at a camera store know what they are talking about, there is no need for a macro lens for bird photography, almost all birds will never let you get close enough to get a macro shot of it, unless the bird is a pet.  Read the link I gave you, you will learn more about what is needed to photograph hummingbirds.


----------



## peke (Jan 4, 2011)

So true. Thanks for the link, I saved it so I can go back to it and also to read it to my DH


----------

