Looking for a small FX macro lens.

[slimandy]

I have used a few macro lenses and my lens of choice is a Sigma 150mm macro OS.

What I am looking for now is a smaller lens that I can put in my bag alongside whatever my main lens is for that day, e.g. I might take a 24~120 to an event but want a macro lens to compliment it. The 150 is quite big; I'll take it when it is my main lens but it's overkill to carry it 'just in case'.

I was looking at the Nikon 60's or Tamron 90.

The 60mm D has an aperture ring which would be good (I have an extention tube), but I don't think it's IQ is up to modern standards particularly at distance.

The 60mm ED is superb, but very little working distance. That's the main issue. It would be quite a versatile general purpose lens and compliment my other lenses well.

The Tamron 90 is cheap and excellent. I don't really need a 90 as such but for macro it solves the problem of lack of working distance.

Decisions, decisions! If anyone has any thoughts I'd appreciate them, particularly if you've got hands on exerience.
On a D700 and sometimes a D300.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[howielenny]

Looking at your choices these are all rated highly

Tamron 60mm f2 Macro Macro
Nikon 60mm micro 2.8 Macro
Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX Macro
Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR Micro
Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro
Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR or non VR macro

Apart from the Nikon 105mm VR they are all similar in price and you can probably get some excellent deals from ebay etc.

Howie

 

[bgD300]

My choice was the 60mm f2.8D.

The aperture ring and shorter working distance for copy work made it ideal for my purposes and it fits nicely in the bag for travel.
--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com
My camera club porfolio: http://www.pacameraclub.com/bgrant.htm
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
EXIF is embedded in photos WSSA #51 as bg5700

 

[slimandy]

Looking at your choices these are all rated highly

Tamron 60mm f2 Macro Macro

This is DX.

Nikon 60mm micro 2.8 Macro

Yes, I listed the pitfalls already.

Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX Macro
Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR Micro

Both DX only.

Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro
Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro

Would consider these two.

Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR

Too big, too expensive.

or non VR macro

I need to look at this one.

Thanks for the list. I'm more interested in personal experience. Any pros and cons that might sway me?

Apart from the Nikon 105mm VR they are all similar in price and you can probably get some excellent deals from ebay etc.

Howie

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[Cerumen]

I'd suggest one of the 55mm AI/AIS f2.8 or 3.5s. Manual focus, but the focus is lovely on these lenses, but IQ and build quality is superb. If considering, check that the focus isn't all stiff, and on the 2.8, check the aperture for oil. I've had a few of these lenses over the years and love them.

That said, I primarily use the 60mm G these days, mostly for the general utility in a modern package.
--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/cerumen
http://www.insectography.com

 

[Jon Rty]

The Sigma isn't. Optically splendid, but the auto-focus is a bit outdated. Have you considered Voigtlander or Zeiss?

Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX Macro
Nikon 85mm 3.5 VR Micro

Both DX only.

 

[BLX1972]

I have the 55/3.5ai micro and I really like it. It is small (245g), the IQ is awesome and you can get them very cheap

Downsides: It is MF and it is only 1:2 so you have to use an extension tube to get 1:1

I also have the 105/VR but often I only bring the 55/3.5 because of weight and size.

How it looks on D700



Macro of a burnt match



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/westergaard

 

[JaronRH]

I would recommend the Tamron 90mm. I use it with both my D90 and D700 and have had great results with both!

--
-Jaron

 

[Brev00]

The Sigma 70 2.8 Macro is a nice dense piece of glass and is fx. On a full frame camera, you might very well be quite happy with the Tamron 90. It has a better working distance than my Sigma and is a very effective focal length on full frame but does grow while focusing. Tamron is frequently faulted for build quality but the upside is often a lighter lens. The Sigma is a pretty basic lens (no mf override, grows while focusing, loud af) but I can't complain about the image quality.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[JaronRH]

Tamron is frequently faulted for build quality but the upside is often a lighter lens.

This is true. I bought my lens in Spring 2010 and had the AF/MF clutch break on me the following fall. However, I was extremely impressed with Tamron's warranty (which is 6 years btw) as they fixed it up at no charge with a turn-around time of 1 week (including shipping both ways!). I haven't had any issues since then!

--
-Jaron

 

[slimandy]

re. Zeiss, I like the Zeiss 50mm f2 makro but it is MF only, doesn't go to 1:1 and is very expensive. A great lens but not really what I'm looking for.

b.t.w. I stand corrected on the Sigma 70mm I thought it was DX. I will add it to my shortlist. Thanks.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[slimandy]

The Sigma 70 2.8 Macro is a nice dense piece of glass and is fx. On a full frame camera, you might very well be quite happy with the Tamron 90. It has a better working distance than my Sigma and is a very effective focal length on full frame but does grow while focusing. Tamron is frequently faulted for build quality but the upside is often a lighter lens. The Sigma is a pretty basic lens (no mf override, grows while focusing, loud af) but I can't complain about the image quality.

That's good info, thanks. I like MF override but I can live without it. For macro I tend to switch to MF.

If you was taking a camera to an event and you wanted a macro in your bag just in case would you pick the Sigma 70 or Tamron 90? Bear in mind if I am taking a lens specifically with macro in mind it will be my Sigma 150 anyway.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[slimandy]

That's definately one for my shortlist. I prefer AF but I tend to switch to MF for macro anyway.

The only problem is my shortlist is getting longer instead of shorter!!
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[Brev00]

What kind of event are you talking about? If there is no need for 1:1 magnification, I would want a fast prime and not a macro when shooting moving people. Macros are fine for macro/portrait hybrids, but I would not want the typically slow af of a macro at a wedding/concert/whatever. Not my Sigma 70, that is for sure. The world will turn as the af hunts. Plus, macros at 2.8 don't offer the speed of a 1.4/1.8 prime if the event is poorly lit.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 

[bgD300]

Here are my 55mm f3.5, 60mm f2.8D and 105mm f2.8 VR at infinity and then at 1:1. The 55mm is on the extension tube in the second shot. The 60mm is on a non-Nikon rear lens cap which is slightly higher than normal.





--
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.wordpress.com
My camera club porfolio: http://www.pacameraclub.com/bgrant.htm
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
EXIF is embedded in photos WSSA #51 as bg5700

 

[slimandy]

Maybe for close-ups of rings, table decoration etc.. Maybe I would take one with me on holiday because I like macro. Maybe as a walkabout lens in case I see something interesting. Who knows? That's the point though. I will be using other lenses for non-macro stuff. This would be as a small-ish macro I could thow in the bag just in case I need one. If I am specifically shooting macro it will be with my Sigma 150, but that is a bit big to lug around just on the off chance I want it. Any of the lenses in question will offer me a faster aperture and less distortion than my 24~120 so they will all offer me something over and above being a macro lens. The main requirement is 1:1 macro and not too bulky. Obviously I want good IQ too. I'm trying to weigh up pros and cons because I only want to buy one lens.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[slimandy]

That's a useful comparison, thx..

I think I have discounted the 55mm because it only goes to 1/2 lifesize on its own and bacause I read a review that suggested it was poor at distance (though excellent for macro). I think I want AF too. The 60 is still tempting because of the aperture ring. I'm just not sure how much behind the newer ED lens it is; one review I read suggests the ED lens is significantly better. Such a shame Nikon don't include aperture rings on their newer micro lenses.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[mattr]

I use the 60/2.8G with a D800 and I like it a lot. Images are perhaps not quite as crisp as with the very sharpest primes (e.g. 85/1.8G) but beautifully rendered wth excellent bokeh. I strongly recommend this lens for Nikon FX.

I had a Tamron 90/2.8 for Canon cameras. It was very good but keep in mind that the lens extends and working distance is small for a 90mm lens. FWIW, I recently tried a Tamron 180/3.5 and Sigma 150/2.8 VC with the D800. Both did not focus properly in contrast detect (live view).

 

[Gabbro]

I highly recommend Nikon 60mm 2.8G. I've had a Nikon 105 VR for years and like it a lot. but it is big and heavy. I wanted something smaller that I don't mind to take it on long hikes.

Before I bought the 60G, I had a 60D for a few days. They are about the same size but the 60D might be a little heavier due to its metal construction. Two things bothered me about the 60D. 1) The moving inner "tube" protrudes when shooting close; 2) The lens itself is set deep inside the lens tube, near impossible to clean if it gets dirty.

One big plus for the 60G, nano coating. I don't think it is marketing gimmic. Time after time, I am amazed how the pictures turn out better than I expected with this lens. See exsamples of wildflowers in Denali NP, Alaska.



"



"

--

 

[dwa1]

Andy,

fwiw...

In addition to the Sigma 150 2.8 macro (non-OS), I have the Tamron 90 2.8 macro.

As I mentioned on some other threads that we have both contributed to, the Tamron 90 has very slow AF. Since AF may not be an issue here, I like it for it's small size and light weight. I also like the way that it easily slips in and out of AF / MF modes. You simply have to slide the nice big focusing ring front to rear and visa versa. This is very convenient as you don't have to "hunt" for a "MF switch". Speaking of hunting... it does hunt quite a bit and slowly at that.

Since you have FX... people tell me that the older Nikon 28-105 AF-D Macro lens "really shines on FX". I have this lens and I really don't like the images on a DX body. Yet to try it on FX, but hanging on to it as I hope to replace one of my DX bodies with FX (someday). Just thought that I'd add that one to the mix since it's relatively small and does macro (50mm to 105mm range). One other note, it's not an IF lens.

Hope this helps in some way Andy. Good luck in your quest.

Wayne