Macro lens question.

[owenter]

After a year of using the same lens - Nikon 18-200 - for everything I'm thinking its time to try a different lens. I've decided on a macro lens and a standard 35 or 55mm but my stupid question of the day is:

If I buy a 60mm Nikon macro lens can I also use it as a standard lens, will it still function as a regular 60mm lens and what are the drawback or advantages. If I can buy one lens to cover both needs then I'm quids in and can afford a last minute holiday to try out the new kit.

Any thoughts? Anyone? Please

Terry

[creid]

Hi Terry, yes indeed the 60mm Nikkor can be used as a "standard" lens. The only disadvantage would be the fixed focal length, you'll have to "frame with your feet" (shuffle backwards and forwards) to get the framing correct (or just crop a bit more).

As for the macro side, 60mm will give you a shorter minimal focal distance so for insect shots etc you'll have to be a bit stealthy so as not to spook your quarry! 90mm and longer macro lenses giver you more working distance between the lens and the subject.

Enjoy your holiday!

Carl

[owenter]

Thanks for the VERY speedy reply. Hadn't thought about the focal length of the macro lens but thinking about it, it makes sense.

Any suggestions about which lens? Should I stick to Nikon or are Sigma etc as good.

105mm Sigma is about the same price as the Nikon 60, Nikon 105mm about twice the 60mm. Over here that is.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by owenter

Thanks for the VERY speedy reply. Hadn't thought about the focal length of the macro lens but thinking about it, it makes sense.

Any suggestions about which lens? Should I stick to Nikon or are Sigma etc as good.

105mm Sigma is about the same price as the Nikon 60, Nikon 105mm about twice the 60mm. Over here that is.

I've used my Nikon 60mm Macro lens for landscapes as well as people shots. I also have the Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR and it's the one I use most often and unlike the 60mm you can use Nikon converters with it. Also, on focus it doesn't extend whereas, the 60mm does. I think the Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR lens is the best macro you can buy. You should also consider the Sigma 105mm and Tamron 90mm lenses, althought I've never used them the feed back from other users rates them very highly. Which ever one you choose I think you will be very happy.

[chris-p]

The Tamron 90mm has had some very good reviews indeed. It won a group test a few issues of DCM back. The Nikon 60mm came second (they didn't test the 105mm). The Tamron won because it was cheaper and fractionally sharper than the Nikon.
What focal length you go for is really dependant on budget and what sort of macro shots you want to take. Generally speaking the longer focal lengths are much more useful outdoors for things like insects etc. as you don't have to get so close so you've less chance of disturbing your subject.

If you're considering a "normal" prime lens then it's also worth considering the 35mm f/1.8 (so long as you're using a DX camera). It's very sharp and it's great value for what it is.

I wouldn't worry about the fixed focal length either. Any true macro lens will be fixed anyway and they are a great way of learning more about composition as you have to move around more and think more before you shoot.

[matt wilson]

Not a Nikon user but went for the 100mm Canon macro.................it makes a brilliant portrait lens and f 2.8 allows you to throw out the background.

I too was advised to go for the longer length as otherwise as full macro you are working very close to the subject and likely to send it buzzing away before you get a chance to press the shutter.

As above though in terms of value for money the Tamron always rates very highly

[jinky]

I`ve got the Sigma 105mm and it is so sharp and really good macro - just noisy. Have to go into manual for real close up work which is often the case with macro anyway. If had had the money at the time and not got such a good 2nd hand deal on the Sigma I would have got the Nikon 105 though. VR would not be necessary for macro so much as it would ideally be on a tripod but would for portraits. Also it does not extend like the sigma - you just have to decide what your budget is!

[flake]

Just to poke a stick into muddy water & stir it around a bit, and speaking from experience, you should buy a true internally focussed macro lens, because when you want to use a macro flash an extending lens will really struggle with the extra weight.

IF lenses also focus more quickly than extending ones so for these two reasons they should be your primary choice. That doesn't mean you have to spend major money on OEM lenses, there's the sigma 150mm Macro which is a really good true IF Macro lens. It costs £530 which is more than the 105mm but comparable to the Nikon version. It will allow you to be a little further back when shooting Macro and makes a great portrait lens too.

Just to stir things up a bit!

[owenter]

Thanks for all the replies, very useful.

Decided to splash out in the Nikon 105, got a good deal from the local store, well good'ish but still cost me about 700 quid.

Now to decide whether or not to by a standard 50mm or the 35mm as recommended here. Then I reckon I've got a good range of lenses to cover the things I like to take pics of.

[chris-p]

Have fun with the 105!

Originally Posted by owenter

Now to decide whether or not to by a standard 50mm or the 35mm as recommended here. Then I reckon I've got a good range of lenses to cover the things I like to take pics of.

This really depends on what you want to use it for. I chose the 35mm for a few reasons. Firstly it's cheaper. It's also much closer to the "standard" focal length for an APS-C sensor than the 50mm so it should have less distortion (I know it doesn't always work like that and the 50mm is probably better corrected, partly down to it's price! )

I bought a prime as I wanted a couple of things. I wanted to have a go at really wide aperture photography to play with really tiny DoF and it's great in low light. I also wanted one because, as has been said before, "focusing and composing with your feet" makes you think more about what you shoot. And it does. Finally, I wanted to see if a cheap prime really was that much sharper than a standard kit zoom (the answer is yes, a lot lot lot sharper).