Good Macro Lens

hey Guys and Gals,


I'm in the market for my first true macro lens, first just for clarification I've seen "micro" and "macro" used almost interchangibly. Obviously these two words are antonyms, but for whatever reason I am horribly confused about the distictions of both. I am looking to start taking crazy upclose photos, and I have gotten enough figured out to know that I want a true 1:1. Once we have that straightened out in my little brain, the second question is which lens would be the best, I have what I would consider to be a reasonable budget but it is flexible based strictly on my patience lol... I shoot a Nikon d3100. I am open to pretty much any suggestions even if they are considered a little "hard core" for a beginer, my biggest thing is I don't want to be frustrated in 6 months wishing I had spent the money on one that is considerably better. thank you in advance for your time and suggestions!! I cant wait to read them!!

"Micro" is Nikon's nomenclature for macro lenses. Most true macro lenses go to at least 1/2 life size ( & full life sized with included adapters for those versions), with most going to life size on their own. I have yet to find any true macro lens that doesn't deliver. Bear in mind that current offerings have VR as well as being AF lenses. Note also that neither VR or AF is recommended as you get closer to life size. That said, unless you have other uses for the lens other than macro shots, why pay for those extra features? Personally, I use older manual focus macro lenses for my macro shooting. Now your camera won't meter or focus with those lenses, but that doesn't mean they can't be used (the camera I use won't either, but I've got lots of great captures). Older lenses will cost you a little less thus saving funds for other goodies like lighting or tripods/ball heads (lighting such as a ring light is more useful than the tripod, but both should be acquired. As I said earlier though, ant true macro lens will give you good results, those results are more a matter of proper technique than equipment .

sweet, thanks for the clarification, and also thanks for the suggestion on the lens selection!! I was actually looking at a Nikkor AF-S VR Micro 105mm f2.8 lens, but after reading that I have much to consider.

with Scott, past master of Macro. Why not consider the older, non VR 105mm f/2.8? It will cost less than the VR version, and is every bit as good (my lens, BTW). And it gives you 1:1 without extension tubes.

I have 105mm VR but I don't advice any one to buy it Because:
1- Heavy
2- You don't need VR or Auto Focus in Macro photography
3- Cost is so high

- My suggestion is Tamron 90MM because:
1- Cheap
2- Light
3- Sharpness Result is smiler to Nikon 9/10

K so a few misconceptions floating around here.

I've owned 3 macro lenses:
Canon 100mm 2.8
Canon 100mm 2.8L IS
Nikon 105 2.8 VR

Some people are saying you don't need/use VR on a macro lens. This isn't true. Sure the closer you get the less you need it BUT you can AF very close with these lenses and YES it DOES make a difference (even at 1:1). Especially the Canon L lens. Take it from me since I actually have owned macro lenses with IS/VR

Here's proof:

The Canon and the Nikon lenses are all awesome and you can't go wrong. Just go with the system you have (I assume Nikon). The IS on the Canon is designed for macro use, so it makes a bit more a difference at 1:1 shooting, but remember the point is that the lens can shoot UP TO 1:1. Not everything you shoot will be or should be at 1:1. In fact I'd say most macro shots aren't at 1:1, but YMMV. Anyway, the further away you get, the less of an impact it has on your shots. But if you're shooting insects or something and you can't have your lens on a tripod because you need to chase them about, then having VR on your lens is very handy indeed.

Anyway, I can't recommend the 105 2.8 enough. It's super sharp and the VR actually helps a lot.

If you're ONLY using it for macro, you're kinda being stupid IMHO. The 105 is a great portrait lens too (albeit a little sharp for some people's tastes) and can be used for many other functions. The AF is a little slow, but not that bad. All macro lenses hunt a bit (because of the massive range of their AF - from really close to infinity).

IF you ever plan to upgrade to a D800 don't even think of getting some inferior lens like a Tamron. It will definitely show the weaknesses in lenses.

Hi Stealthy Ninja,

I just wanna clear things to ya { If you like }

- To get a very sharp shot in Macro Photography you shall kill the internal vibration in the camera and that vibration come from the mirror and the VR

What you would like to prove here is not correct and the shots were not focused well
You could see the vibration in your shots marked with red. See how is it when the VR is off

If you would make it more Convincing, Please re-shot them and use tripod it might help you much better to Convince yourself

As I told you before I have 105 VR but I never used VR { My shots is my proof}