Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/)
-   -   Nikon DSLR Macro Lens (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-lenses-62/nikon-dslr-macro-lens-168663/)

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 1:34 PM

Nikon DSLR Macro Lens
 
Ok, I see that there are 100's of these threads here, But none of them are really providing me with the info of which I am looking for. I am looking for a All around Macro Lense, I have a nikon d40, I do not need, nor do i want AF, Since 90% of the time i shoot in MF. I don't really have a huge budget so i'm looking for something in the more cheap variety but something that still has quality, Then I will take the suggestions given here and search for a used lens since new is not a issue either. Again, My appologies for making another "help me find a macro lens for my nikon" thread
I have read around places online of people getting used macro lenses for their nikon dslr's for like 80 bucks and had great results, But they did not say which lens it was that they picked up. I really appreciate all the help.
-Richard

Bob Nichol Apr 5, 2010 5:16 PM

I've used the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro on both a Nikon D70s and D300 to get excelent results. It is a "screwdriver" (no internal motor) lens so it won't AF on a D40. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/105mm...dg-macro-sigma

Like all dedicated macro lenses it has a good rating http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/221/cat/30

The 105mm focal length allows ample working room between the front element and the subject.

shoturtle Apr 5, 2010 5:24 PM

Are you looking for a true 1:1 macro, or just a lens with macro say at 1:2.

For around 80 dollars you can get a zoom lens with macro ability from tamron 75-300mm macro used on ebay. It is not as good as the tamron 70-300 DI LD II

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 5:36 PM

Bob Nichol: Thanks, But I would be paying more for that lens than I did for the camera body and both 18-55 and 55-200 lens put together.
Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1075287)
Are you looking for a true 1:1 macro, or just a lens with macro say at 1:2.

For around 80 dollars you can get a zoom lens with macro ability from tamron 75-300mm macro used on ebay. It is not as good as the tamron 70-300 DI LD II

80 dollars is more so around my price range, I know, it seems a bit low, but hey. anything is possible.
I would ultimately like a true 1:1 macro, I have the 18-55 and the 55-200 as stated above, the 18-55 gets fairly close, But not as close to certain things as I would like.
I knew I would get some good tips/ answers from this forum. Reading some of the other posts there is some great info.

Oh, one more question. this may be a stupid one. but, if i find a lens on ebay that says it fits nikon slr cameras. Would it find a dslr, im not sure if that is the same form factor. Thanks!

shoturtle Apr 5, 2010 5:52 PM

I would look for something that will give you Aperture control through the camera. It is easier to use that way. A fully manual lens, as you stop down manually, the VF gets darker and not as easy to compose. Because the are going to be fully manual nikon slr lenses on ebay.

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 6:00 PM

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT
how about this one. Macro stuff is new to me. So shopping for a lens at a good price is a toughy.
Any other suggestions. really appreciate you guys!

rjseeney Apr 5, 2010 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarface199 (Post 1075295)

80 dollars is more so around my price range, I know, it seems a bit low, but hey. anything is possible.
I would ultimately like a true 1:1 macro, I have the 18-55 and the 55-200 as stated above, the 18-55 gets fairly close, But not as close to certain things as I would like.
I knew I would get some good tips/ answers from this forum. Reading some of the other posts there is some great info.

Macro and cheap are typically two words that don't go together. Macro lenses are generally very high quality, and to get a decent one, used, I'd say $300 is about the minimum. Here is one...I can't speak to quality but would expect decent results http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...2_8_EX_DG.html. As was mentioned you could get a lens that has macro capability, but it won't be 1:1 and thus isn't true macro. One thing you could do is to get close-up filters that will allow your current lenses to focus closer, but with some loss of image quality.

I really think you're better off waiting a bit and saving up the extra cash to get a true macro lens...your results will be better, and your original $80 would be better spent.

shoturtle Apr 5, 2010 6:06 PM

That would do the job, it is not 1:1 but would give you a good start. It is also a super zoom lens, so there is some trade off if you decided to use as your everyday lens. It will give you the ease of 1 lens but you give up some IQ. But for Macro it will be fine, as you will not be reaching out to the long end of the zoom.

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 6:16 PM

Thanks Guys, I am just trying to expand my photography A bit, now that we are on a good roll. i'm truly sick of having to take panoramic to get a wide angle, What would be a decent fair priced Wide angle lens? Again. Auto Focus is not really needed since I prefer, and get more control when I MF.
I'm assuming that would be a bit more budget friendly than a macro lens at the moment, put the macro in my wish list for a later time, Yeah. I know its a bit weird to be wanting to put this money into a d40, instead of saving to upgrade to better equip. But I think it takes great images. here's a shot I got last night
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w...tos/th_1-1.jpg

shoturtle Apr 5, 2010 6:20 PM

Actually the macro option is less expensive then the wide angle option. Anything down at 10 to 12mm on the wide side will be well over 400 dollars. You will not find any old slr lenses wider the 20mm.

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1075306)
Actually the macro option is less expensive then the wide angle option. Anything down at 10 to 12mm on the wide side will be well over 400 dollars. You will not find any old slr lenses wider the 20mm.

Wow that I had no idea. Thought it was the other way around. I'm glad I purchased this camera with the 2 lenses as a kit, shopping around for them is quite tough work. Now, I have read something about extending rings or something (may be calling it the wrong name) that goes between the lens and the camera which acts to bring the subject closer into frame give a bit more zoom over what you normally could do? are these worth anything at all to give a try, or will it hurt the IQ pretty bad?

shoturtle Apr 5, 2010 6:31 PM

extension tubes, but a good one is the price of a macro zoom lens that you are looking at. I find them to be a bit annoying to use. It does not allow you to use the lens for anything but macro when on. So if something else pops up you want to shoot when doing macro. You will have to dismount the lens, and tube and remount the lens, and that thing might be gone by the time you are ready to shoot.

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 6:39 PM

Yeah. That sounds like it would be a pain. Do not really want to have to deal with that, I am learning so much here, Thanks so much. Another thing I was looking at was Fish eye lens, I have seen some lenses, and I have seen some fish eye attachments that go on your existing lens, worth it. Or another bust?? Looks like I should start saving up some money.
Something like this http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-80mm...=2RW6SVKO5SL2I

shoturtle Apr 5, 2010 6:43 PM

Fish eye lenses are expensive also. I really do not like the way the photo look with a fisheye personally. Also anytime you place a inexpensive piece of glass in front of your lens, it usually degrade the image. That is why I do not even use a UV protector. ;)

scarface199 Apr 5, 2010 6:49 PM

So many things to think about. I placed a bid on the ebay link I posted earlier. I will see how that comes out on if I win it for a decent price. Going to let all this info soak in.
Looks like i'm stuck with doing panoramas until I am able to afford a wide angle.

TCav Apr 5, 2010 7:59 PM

You could also look for a 'Plastic Fantastic' 100mm f/3.5 Macro lens. It was sold under multiple names, like Phoenix, Cosina, Bower, etc. but it's quite good and the AF version can usually be had for ~$100. It looks like cheap junk, but it works well and lasts longer than it has a right to. It was also available as a manual focus lens, and can be had for ~$60.

Bob Nichol Apr 5, 2010 8:38 PM

Use "Making Sense of Lens Acronyms" http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm and "Nikkor Autofocus Lenses" http://www.bythom.com/nikkordb.htm as a guide as to which older Nikon lenses are usable on your D40

scarface199 Apr 7, 2010 12:57 PM

I have a National Camera Exchange which is a local camera shop here in MN, and they have GREAT deals on lenses. and im looking at a few to get.. And need opinions on them and if they would work on my d40, I know some wont auto focus. but that is fine
NIKON 28MM F3.5 NON AI
NIKON AF 28-80MM F3.5-5.6D
NIKON/TAMRON AF 28-200MM LD

shoturtle Apr 7, 2010 4:45 PM

What lenses do you have currently. Since non of these are macro or wide angle. You may be doubling up on the ranges you have with your current lens line up?

scarface199 Apr 7, 2010 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoturtle (Post 1076184)
What lenses do you have currently. Since non of these are macro or wide angle. You may be doubling up on the ranges you have with your current lens line up?

Ahh, then they are not worth the money, even if they are 45 bucks.. I have the 2 kit lenses, the 18-55, and the 55-200

shoturtle Apr 7, 2010 5:52 PM

Both your lenses are quite good. And unless you are not happy with them, I do not see how any of the ones you listed is really better then what you have.

If the 28mm was a 1.8 prime, then that would give you a very bright lens. But at 3.5 it is about the same as you 18-55mm

And none of them are wide angles on a crop body. So you are not gaining there either.

scarface199 Apr 11, 2010 5:48 PM

Alright. another question. One of my hobbies is taking pictures of cars. and today I was going 65mph down the road and took a photo of a car going down the highway along side of me, and it looked like it was standing still.. I want the background to be blurry to actually make the car look like it is moving.. would this lens be suitable for that? NIKON 50MM F/1.8. or do you have any suggestions to achieve this?

shoturtle Apr 11, 2010 5:51 PM

You can use the 50mm, but you will need to stop down and pan the shot. You will want to get you shutter speed down to at least 1/60 sec to get the good motion blur.

scarface199 Apr 11, 2010 5:57 PM

How do you suggest getting the shutter speed down that low on a bright sunny day. I tried to lower it down, but once i went below 1/1000 the picture would be far to exposed. Thanks for the help.

shoturtle Apr 11, 2010 6:12 PM

stopping down to say f7.1 and setting the iso to 100. That should get the shutter speed low enough and should give you the sense of motion that you are looking for.

scarface199 Apr 11, 2010 6:28 PM

ISO 200 work, nikon d40 only allows to go to 200, And thanks for the tips, I will give this a try the next time I am out

shoturtle Apr 11, 2010 6:30 PM

If that is still to fast of a shutter speed go to say f8 or 9

paniolo Apr 13, 2010 1:56 PM

and/or use a ND or polarizing filter.

scarface199 Apr 14, 2010 5:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paniolo (Post 1079108)
and/or use a ND or polarizing filter.

I have heard that suggestion from a couple people. I have heard that filters cut back on Image quality. Will it really be noticeable?

shoturtle Apr 14, 2010 5:25 PM

Filters have their purpose.

ND filters are very useful for when you want to shoot wide open but want to slow down the shutter speed.

ND4 will add 1 Fstop
ND6 will add 2 Fstop

Also the are other filters that adds different effect like C-PL that cut reflection. Giving you a blue sky when shooting perpendicular to the sun.

Using a filter protectors do just degrade imagine, but other filters are useful tools in the photographers bag.

I use a haze 1 filter as a warming filter as I like the effects it gives.

paniolo Apr 14, 2010 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarface199 (Post 1079839)
I have heard that suggestion from a couple people. I have heard that filters cut back on Image quality. Will it really be noticeable?

A cheap (poor glass) filter will degrade the image. I had a decent filter on my new lens but found that the image quality was compromised. If using a filter, buy a good quality one or shoot without (which I currently do).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.