Macro lens for Nikon D90

I want to get in close too, but for me personally, I don't want to buy a macro lens at the moment because of the price. I'll be paying attention to this thread to see what people say. For now I just ordered macro filters, I don't expect the results of a macro lens, just for fun, especially since they were only 10 dollars.

 

yeah, I've also seen them called close up filters. They are basicly magnifying glasses that screw on to the end of your lens. From what I've read, they are not that good, and give you extremely shallow depth of field. But hey, for 10 dollars, I figured it would be fun to play around with!

 

this is probably the best macro lens for your setup.

remember you will need a slave flash, or a ring flash, or lightbox to get the best indoor shots.

http://www.google.com/products/cata...a=X&ei=46HmTZ7SOIHqgAeu8fmbCw&ved=0CDwQ8wIwAA

Sigma also makes a great lens.

 

Holy hell @ the price.

Edit:
After seeing that, I checked places I know:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830997587

That is a good one, it's 90mm instead of 105mm but hey look at the price difference.

Also:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA04D000GM55

There is the same exact one he posted at like 1/2 the price. It's out of stock right now but the 90mm is good unless you're patient enough to wait for the 105.

 

you get what you pay for. never used a tamaron(spelling?) before. Id personally stick with sigma or nikon lenses.

You can find the 105mm or even a 60mm for cheaper locally. go to your local photography store.

also, I was just linking for lenses. there are tons of places to get the 105mm for A LOT cheaper.

 

i got something similar to this for my canon, i don't know much about nikon, but this might work. Just do some research.
http://www.amazon.com/PROTECTION-Digital-Camera-THESE-FOLLOWING-55-200mm/dp/B003CMYZ5Y

 

I don't know why people say "you get what you pay for". That's about the stupidest statement ever. They say that with animals and electronics and really it's not true. Sometimes it's possible, but others it's not.

A person who professional breeds animals versus a person you've not heard of selling animals. Professional sells for $20 and the person you haven't heard of sells for $10. You ask the professional and he says: you get what you pay for. The thing with that is people who breed on a large scale actually don't have time to focus on their animals as much as the person you've not heard of. I've seen people say this and their tanks only get spot cleaned once a week where as other people clean daily. Now granted a possibility the person you never heard of may not have any experience.

Same goes with brands of phones, televisions and various other electronics. The reason you generally pay more for name brand stuff is because they do advertising on a large scale, so that usually rises their price.

The shoe thing for instance. You pay for Nike's because it's "Nike". You can get the same quality shoe at other shoe stores for a 1/4 of the price, does this mean that you get what you pay for? No.

Pants/Shirts. Polo/Tommy hilfiger/abercrombie and other stuff versus walmart brands like faded glory, levi, wrangler. Half the price, why because it's not the right name brand so you can mark up the price. In fact the walmart brands last just as long and usually last even longer.

That is why the: "you get what you pay for" statement is stupid.

Edit:
For the "you get what you pay for statement":
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90m...ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar

That's the reviews on that lens.

Also since you've never heard of them and auto assumed it's a crappy brand:
INTRODUCTION

Since 1979, Tamron has produced 90mm macro lenses whose optical quality has rivaled the extraordinary Micro-Nikkors. Some photographers claim to have preferred the Tamron over the Nikkor because of its superior handling of out-of-focus areas ("Bokeh").

More recently, Tamron have introduced a range of “digitally integrated” Di lenses, each of which has raised the bar in value-for-money optical performance. Now, we see the marriage of the famous 90mm macro to the most up-to-date Di technology.
^^^^
They were founded in the 1950's though.

 

from personal experience with the tamron 90mm and the sigma 105mm and the canon 100mm i like the Sigma 105mm the best. It's autofocus is not the greatest, but really good to use and pin sharp optics.

The worst of the lot was the tamron, i wouldnt pay what they're selling for.

I personally use them on canon cameras but know they come in nikon as well

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ and adorama.com has great search filters that can help you see all your lens options. Just filter it by mount (Nikon) and Macro/close up and it should give you all your choices.

Of course a Nikon lens is a great choice but Sigma and Tamron are great alternatives...just depends on how much you would to spend. I wouldn't suggest getting any macro lens shorter than 60mm.....you want a little distance from your subject.....another thing to consider is how fast the lens is...but again those would be pricier....

 

Calm down their.

with certain things you DO indeed get what you pay for! animals and shoes are not great examples.

Boots yes. Buy a pair of wal mart boots for 30 bucks, and then go buy a pair of redwing's...the difference is clear.

I have heard of tamron. Know many people who use them. I said "I have never used one" there is a reason too.

The lens quality is sub par, their auto focus is sub par, as is there basic design.

Just because something has been around for a while doesnt make it good.

Like I said, either go with Nikkor lenses, or sigma. Both are proven to me, and my friends who also are into photography.

yeah, their expensive. Name one lens, or accessories for camera's that isnt these days.

Its simple.

With Nikon, the bodies are cheaper up front- where they stick it too you is lenses.

With Canon, the bodies are a tad more upfront- but the lenses are cheaper.

here are your options to shop around for.

a 60mm macro Nikkor

a 105mm macro Nikkor

or a 105mm sigma

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=sigma+105mm+macro+nikon&_frs=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m359

not going to sugar coat anything, macro lenses are outrageous. They are an investment. if you are just wanting to "fool around with it" go rent one from the local photography shop.

around here to rent there like 100 deposit(which you get back) plus 30 to 50 bucks a day.

 

Oh, I was just giving you a hard time bro, no worries. I don't even own a DSLR. I own a $250ish dollar Panasonic DMC-ZS7.

DSLR = Too expensive for me then the fact that the lens are 300+? Hell no. For that much money it better wipe my butt after I use the bathroom.

 

Have you thought about extension tubes?

http://www.google.com/products/cata...sa=X&ei=XzToTYNQivX6Bvj_jdcP&ved=0CFcQ8wIwAQ#

 

My vote based on bang for the buck is the Sigma 150mm f2.8.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f28-ex-apo-dg-hsm-macro-sigma

I use it on a D80, not only does it do great macro, but when put to use as a portrait lens, it's amazing. The Bokeh is nice too.

It also won't break the bank, at least if you shop around. I think $750 is roughly what I paid.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150mm-Macro-Canon-Cameras/dp/B00063KO52

I don't have examples of shots, but you can check out dozens of sites for those. As any photographer knows, it's not what you spend on the glass, it's how you use it.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/150_28_apo_ex_dg_macro_hsm
http://www.dpnotes.com/sigma-150mm-macro-for-nikon/

I will say that it is a little slow to autofocus and hunts a bit, but once it's there, holy cow.

 

Will any of these lenses fit onto a Canon?

Also, could someone possibly direct me to the link of a good fisheye lens/ attachment for Canon?


:3

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

ALSO,

Do all you folks pronounce it "nick-on" or "nye-kon" ?

I use the first pronunciation. :|

 

Ny kon is how I say it...

Also warren, I believe sigma does indeed make lenses for canon bodies. I am not sure as I do not own a canon...

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

The 150mm is not a true macro lens though. it is not a 1:1 ratio....

While you might be able to use it as a macro it still is far from the real thing.

 

I will add.

Draiman(aka Gavin) on here uses a standard 18-55mm with macro filters.

He is an incredible photography who turned me onto macro filters. While it is true you dont get the same quality as with a true 1:1 macro lens you can get damn close.

they sell various quality of macro filters most ranging from 10 to 30 bucks. but for a good quality one like a hoya, you should expect to pay around 80 to 100.

a 10X is fantastic as close ups.

Also you can buy adapters to literally flip your lenses backwards and use them like that. this also effects your depth of field, but gets great results. only thing is you will have to focus manually as there is no way for your camera to auto-focus.

here is a link to Gavin's photos.

I believe he has since gotten an actual macro lens(not for sure) but I know for a while the 18-55mm with macro filters is all he used.

look at some of the earlier pictures.

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=154132&page=54