# Best macro (micro) lens for a nikon d60?



## 3ther (Aug 14, 2011)

Hello folks,

I've always been intrigued by the idea of macro photography (be it of watches or otherwise), but I've never had a proper lens for it. I've been exploring different options as of late (hoping for a decent tax return to add more fuel to this fire) and I'm a bit curious as to what you think the best entry level macro lens is for the d60? After a hasty google search, I found the Nikkor 40mm f/2.8, and, after reading the reviews, it seems like the way to go.

Have any of you used this lens before? What do you like/dislike about it? Do you have other recommendations (tamron, sigma, etc.)? 

Furthermore, in addition to watch photography, what else have you used it for/found it useful for?

I look forward to seeing your responses. Thanks guys!


----------



## markot (Mar 17, 2010)

I don't own the lens, but I read it's quite good optically. But there's a downside of it, since it's only 40mm, you have to get really close to your subject for 1:1 magnification. For still subjects (like watches) it shouldn't be a problem, but you will probably scare insects if you get your lens so close. Being small and light 40mm it's probably good for walk around and/or street photography too.


----------



## heebs (Nov 9, 2008)

It's going to come down to a bit of personal preference. I like to shoot with a longer macro lens because I like to have more working distance at the same magnifications. When in too close, you'll cast shadows on your subject from being so close. I also feel like I have some more background control with a narrower field of view so a slight repositioning of the camera can change the background a lot sometimes and change the image entirely. YMMV however. I prefer to shoot with my 100mm macro lens (full frame), and my cousin gets great results with her old 55mm macro lens and she doesn't like using mine. 

I think in general terms you still get the best quality from Nikon and Canon macro lenses, but the third party lenses are VERY good for the money as well. My dad has a 90mm Tamron macro lens for his D90 and he gets some fantastic shots. 

If you're going to get a macro lens, make sure you've got a good stable support for your camera (tripod, etc.). At higher magnifications, even the slightest amount of camera shake can show as motion blur in your photos. Also be prepared to deal with very shallow depth of field or sloooowwww shutter speeds... 

Macro shooting can be a lot of fun. It gets me looking at the world around me in a different way and it's also something to do when the light is crappy out.


----------



## Jamiesutto (Nov 29, 2011)

***** said:


> It's going to come down to a bit of personal preference. I like to shoot with a longer macro lens because I like to have more working distance at the same magnifications. When in too close, you'll cast shadows on your subject from being so close. I also feel like I have some more background control with a narrower field of view so a slight repositioning of the camera can change the background a lot sometimes and change the image entirely. YMMV however. I prefer to shoot with my 100mm macro lens (full frame), and my cousin gets great results with her old 55mm macro lens and she doesn't like using mine.
> 
> I think in general terms you still get the best quality from Nikon and Canon macro lenses, but the third party lenses are VERY good for the money as well. My dad has a 90mm Tamron macro lens for his D90 and he gets some fantastic shots.
> 
> ...


Second the larger lenses for all of the above. I love my sigma for my D70


----------



## 3ther (Aug 14, 2011)

***** said:


> It's going to come down to a bit of personal preference. I like to shoot with a longer macro lens because I like to have more working distance at the same magnifications. When in too close, you'll cast shadows on your subject from being so close. I also feel like I have some more background control with a narrower field of view so a slight repositioning of the camera can change the background a lot sometimes and change the image entirely. YMMV however. I prefer to shoot with my 100mm macro lens (full frame), and my cousin gets great results with her old 55mm macro lens and she doesn't like using mine.
> 
> I think in general terms you still get the best quality from Nikon and Canon macro lenses, but the third party lenses are VERY good for the money as well. My dad has a 90mm Tamron macro lens for his D90 and he gets some fantastic shots.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the advice. I looked into the tamron 90mm and I like it for a few reasons. I like that it's a longer focus length, as I've already got nikon's 35mm f/1.8 and I feel like the 40mm would be like buying the same thing. That would allow me to back away a bit more than a 40mm would. I also like that the focus motor is built in as well. That's been a major issue with several lenses that I've wanted to purchase, as a lot of them don't work on a lot of the older, entry level nikons. It's not much more expensive, either. I might have to take a trip down to BCC and see if they've got one in the case that I can try out.

Thanks again all! Keep sending suggestions!


----------



## J_Hack (Dec 17, 2008)

Make sure you are checking the focal distance - the distance needed to focus properly. This is one thing that a lot of people overlook. You can always try getting some extension tubes and trying that to see what you may want to get before shelling out the money for a nice lens. Plus you can always use them in the future.


----------



## 3ther (Aug 14, 2011)

Very true... 

Just checked focus distances of a few lenses that I had been looking at:

Tamron 90mm: 11.4"
Nikon 60mm: 7.2"
Sigma 50mm: 7.4"
Nikon 40mm: 6.36"


----------



## heebs (Nov 9, 2008)

J_Hack said:


> Make sure you are checking the focal distance - the distance needed to focus properly. This is one thing that a lot of people overlook. You can always try getting some extension tubes and trying that to see what you may want to get before shelling out the money for a nice lens. Plus you can always use them in the future.


Be careful with extension tubes, especially on the newer generation DSLRs. They rely so much on information being transmitted from lens to camera (focus motors inside the lens, aperture control, etc.) that you'll have to buy the (expensive) specific tubes for your body. I haven't looked into extension tubes for any of my newer SLRs, but I used to buy cheap teleconverters and knock the optical elements out to make my own tubes. Mind you, that was pre-auto focus anything...


----------



## George Riemer (Mar 9, 2008)

I own the Nikon 40mm 2.8 macro, and it is a really teriffic lens. Yes, you wind up getting in close, but for watch photography, it's not really a limitation. Plus, as it's so small and lightweight, it makes a grat portrait or just-walking-around lens. I used it at the Miami Beach art show a couple of months back, and was pleased with the results. Not to mention that you can't beat the price! 

+1 for the 40mm.


----------



## Muddy250 (Jul 20, 2011)

Can't comment on the 40mm. My only macro is my 150mm sigma f2.8 
Absolutely pin sharp on the D300. Loads of working room and useful for 
long range landscape shots too.


----------



## J_Hack (Dec 17, 2008)

Oops!


----------



## J_Hack (Dec 17, 2008)

***** said:


> Be careful with extension tubes, especially on the newer generation DSLRs. They rely so much on information being transmitted from lens to camera (focus motors inside the lens, aperture control, etc.) that you'll have to buy the (expensive) specific tubes for your body. I haven't looked into extension tubes for any of my newer SLRs, but I used to buy cheap teleconverters and knock the optical elements out to make my own tubes. Mind you, that was pre-auto focus anything...


True, but you can always manually focus. I had that issue with an older 50mm lens and using extension tubes. The lens w/ extension tube mounted did not auto focus, not show the correct exposure, but after using it for a day or two I picked up on what was really needed to control the shutter speeds and adjusting the F-Stop to what I was looking for. Cheaper way and better way to learn, IMO of course!


----------



## Takemusu (Feb 8, 2012)

I've been looking into a macro solution myself. From my own research thus far, most (who go the lens route) prefer 100mm macros. This largely for the increased focus to subject distance, utility beyond macro use, sharpness, and better background blur. (Technically two lenses of different focal lengths can give the same depth of field yet still have different background blurs. This is a product of (mostly) less "background" in the background due to the compressing telephoto aspect of longer focal lengths...shorter lenses give more background as they give a wider viewing angle. At least this is my understanding...pros can correct me on this.) 

Knowing what you are going to shoot will help determine your lens choice. The 100mm lengths are great sharp lenses in and of themselves and are incredibly useful for portraits etc. In addition to macros. They are pretty fast too for their focal length. Also what other glass do you currently own? Answers to that should also help you decide.

Check out the Nikon 100mm, the Sigma 105mm, the Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm. All of these are reviewed well. Bear in mind that some of these may focus quicker and quieter than others. I shoot Canon, and the Canon 100mm I am looking at has a very quiet focusing motor, plus the lens does not extend when focusing. This last point is can't be overstated as the focusing necessary to get to macro extends other lenses quite a bit...like 2.5-3" and if you want to shoot critters, they don't typically like noisy objects moving towards themselves.

As for extension tubes, after my own research, I found that option potentially too much trouble, especially for a novice. Plus the price, although cheaper, was not the bargain it was in the older days if you want tubes with electronics in them. Plus to get a 1:1 subject to sensor size you will typically have to stack a couple of these suckers to push your standard lens out enough to achieve that macro ratio. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## heebs (Nov 9, 2008)

Takemusu said:


> Knowing what you are going to shoot will help determine your lens choice. The 100mm lengths are great sharp lenses in and of themselves and are incredibly useful for portraits etc. In addition to macros. They are pretty fast too for their focal length. Also what other glass do you currently own? Answers to that should also help you decide.
> 
> Check out the Nikon 100mm, the Sigma 105mm, the Tamron 90mm and Tokina 100mm. All of these are reviewed well. Bear in mind that some of these may focus quicker and quieter than others. I shoot Canon, and the Canon 100mm I am looking at has a very quiet focusing motor, plus the lens does not extend when focusing. This last point is can't be overstated as the focusing necessary to get to macro extends other lenses quite a bit...like 2.5-3" and if you want to shoot critters, they don't typically like noisy objects moving towards themselves.
> 
> ...


All good info. If I could add a couple things, it would be about focussing and extension...

I have always owned manual focus macro lenses and never really had a problem with it. I've used my dad's AF macro on his D90, and found it to be useful at times, but not overall. Because of the miniscule depth of field, one will usually want very specific focus which may or may not fall within one of the focus points. However, if you are shooting moving subjects close up (critters), or are shooting handheld (recipe for frustration) then I can see how AF would help.

The formula for extension is that you need the same amount of extra length as the focal length of your lens to get to 1:1. So for a 100mm lens, you'll need 100mm of extension. The tragedy here is that you end up losing half of the light you'd have without the extension. This is somewhat like taking a projector and moving it twice the distance from the screen. Most macro lenses use this same effect and that's why the lenses extend so much at the close focus end (built in extension in the focusing helix). I don't know how Canon does it with their macro stuff (I'm a Nikon guy, never used much Canon gear).

Lastly, it's a good point about being able to use a 90-105ish mm macro lens for other purposes, such as portraits. It's a flattering perspective for head and shoulder shots, and for some isolated landscape shots (mountains with a bit of telephoto compression always look good). However, as with all things there will be some compromises. Because these lenses tend to be super sharp, they may not neccesarily be the most flattering for a portrait subject because it'll pick up every little minute detail (flaw?)...

If I was looking for an inexpensive macro solution, here's what I'd do: 
1. investigate using stacked lenses. You can reverse mount a shorter lens in front of a bit longer one and get awesome results. Caveat: both lenses should be primes. 
2. Check out the Canon close up filters. They're not cheap, but they're the only multi element, multi coated ones that are really worthwhile these days. I don't think Nikon makes them anymore. You'll have to buy a step down ring to fit them onto most common lenses though. 
3. Pick up a multi purpose zoom that has a macro or close-focus option.

HTH,

-*****


----------



## Takemusu (Feb 8, 2012)

***** said:


> All good info. If I could add a couple things, it would be about focussing and extension...
> 
> I have always owned manual focus macro lenses and never really had a problem with it. I've used my dad's AF macro on his D90, and found it to be useful at times, but not overall. Because of the miniscule depth of field, one will usually want very specific focus which may or may not fall within one of the focus points. However, if you are shooting moving subjects close up (critters), or are shooting handheld (recipe for frustration) then I can see how AF would help.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the additional information. I guess the inherent light loss issue is why these lenses start off so fast at f2.8. I have a 18-200 zoom that is an f3.5-5.6. At 100mm I'm probably at f4.2ish. For me in regular use the 100/2.8 combo will be nice. Especially as my 50D has a cropped sensor, making the 100 actually 160mm. A fair small telephoto. As for how Canon handles their lens, it doesn't extend, so the optics travel is all internal. Unextended the overall lens size is slightly longer than the Tamron or Sigma, but at macro distance the Canon ends up a bit shorter.

I did hear about the sharpness being "too sharp" for portrait work...funny but truth isn't always flattering eh? That doesn't bother me too much as I would be shooting more than people, and the extra sharpness would be ideal, say in an aquarium, or zoo. As for the autofocus, that is nice but not essential for my macros. The Canon 100 let's you manually focus with AF turned on, so you don't even have to switch off that setting for tricky focusing tasks.

I like the idea about reversing prime lenses...maybe a bit out of my pay grade as my only glass is the aforementioned zoom and a nifty fifty (50mm f1.8). I wonder what the 100 and 50 would do together? I'm assuming you would reverse mount the 100? My poor 50 has a plastic mount... I guess careful holding would be in order?

I will also look into the close up filter option. Interesting...


----------

