What macro set-up?

I'm considering getting into shooting some macro images - basically landscape stuff - ferns, leaves, mushrooms, webs, etc. I don't know diddly about macro except that I really like the images Mike Moats puts out.

I shoot a Nikon D2X. I don't know the best lens to start with, so I would appreciate your thoughts. I'm thinking about three lenses so far, but am still very open to other suggestions.

The three lenses I've been thinking about are;

Nikkor 70-180 macro zoom - no longer made, but still available on the secondary market - approx. $1400 - $1700 USD. Seems pretty expensive, but I like the idea of the zoom, and it's supposed to be very sharp, albeit slow.

Sigma 150 f/2.8 or Sigma 180 f/3.5 - Have read very good reviews on both lenses - both are reasonably priced, supposedly very sharp, and I like the idea of having a little more working room between the lens and subject that the longer lens allows.

OK, I would love to hear your thoughts, suggestions, and ideas.

Thanks in advance.

I bought the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR this winter and am finally getting to use it... I'm pretty much addicted. You can look at my gallery to see the results (this is the first time I've ever done macro, so I'm basically a novice). All of my recent flora and macro photos are with this lens.

Also, there is the added benefit of using it with a TC. I sometimes pair mine with my 1.7X TC (f/4.5 @ 180mm) which makes it nice and versatile!

- Luke

Luke, from what I have seen, you are more than getting used to the lens.

Bill, I would forget the Nikon zoom and go for one of the Sigmas instead. They are cheaper and for macro work, will be a lot sharper. The two Sigmas also go down to 1:1, while the Nikon only gets to 1:2. Also, you can use teleconverters on the Sigmas. A 1.4x converter technically will degrade the image a bit but practically speaking, you'll never be able to see it. The 2x converter will be noticeable but you'll still need to look for it. Forget about a 2x on the zoom and the 1.4x probably won't be a good idea either.

I've seen good evidence that the Sigma 150 is sharper than the Canon 180 and I live and die on the Canon. There are other lenses in my camera bag which I mayuse one of these days....

I wouldn't discount a Tamron or Tokina either for a macro. There are no bad macros on the market from a major manufacturer, just different levels of excellent.

I'm not sure that you will notice too much of a difference between the 180 and the 150 for working distance. I suspect that technique and care will make up the difference, especially it you are working with a cropped sensor.

I'll second the Nikon 105 macro VR.
99% of my macro work is with it, and it's a terrific lens. You can add a TC or extension tubes.
Great resale value also, which should always be considered.
They appear on EBay regularly, so no need to buy full price new.
Sandy r

I bought my Zeiss 100mm macro used from BH for $1350 and love it. Cons...It does not go down to 1:1; Manual...which is not a problem unless you like fast work in portrait shooting; and weight/price. Pros: The smooth focus barrel and sense of control using this manual lens - the solid feel is great. Also I love the bokeh...not like motion blur...but creamy or nice light dispersment when I have a few bright spots in b/g. Finally, I am pleased how the photos seem to have a sharpness and depth...3 dimensions...that other lenses don't seem to convey. Maybe that has to do w/nil chromatic aberration and edge cleanliness. (ps...I shot an indoor event w/this lens at f2...and got the brightness needed w/o flash and w/o having to push iso over 400 ...good clarity and image quality shooting at f2)

Hello Bill,
If you mostly do "landscapes" I would go for a 100/105 mm macro en not a 150/180 because of the distance. I did start with a 180mm macro (excellent lens) but sometimes I do need space to make photographs which is not available a the moment especially with mushrooms when you lay down on the ground between trees etc. In this case I think it's better to choose for the smaller working distance of a 100mm (or even less). For taking pictures of dragonflies or butterflies the 180mm is perfect.I'm now saving money for a 100mm. Brand does not matter that much in my opinion.
So hopes this will help you in making a choice.
Have fun with macro.

Hey Bill, glad to hear you like my images. From what you mentioned you are looking to shoot mostly stationary subjects (ferns, leaves, mushrooms, webs, etc). So you could get by will a midrange lens to start while keeping your cost down. As Dan B points out there are no bad macro, and I agree, I see all the macro lenses in my workshops and they all do well. In the midrange focal length I'm using the Tamron 90mm and it very sharp shooting and one of the better priced midrange lenses in the low to mid $400 range. If you are thinking you would want to shoot some critters and you can afford it you may want to go to the longer focal lengths like Tamron or the Sigma 180mm. The Sigma 150mm is also a good choice. Good luck with what ever you decide and look forward to seeing your images in the macro and flora galleries.

Thanks all for your time and comments. I will start researching some mid range macros since that seems to be a consensus among most of you. I'm a bit hesitant to buy the Nikkor 105 VR simply because I plan on using this lens strictly for macro work on a tripod 100% of the time. Hesitant to pay the extra $ for the VR when I will probably never use it. If I need VR for other shooting I can simply use my 70-200 VR. Thanks again, and I would love to hear additional comments and thoughts!

Bill, here's a thought on the lens choices - rent one or more for a weekend and try them out. It's a great way to test-drive a lens prior to purchase. The top lens rental shops take care to insure the lenses are at spec and generally represent what you would get if you purchased one. I'm renting a Canon 100mm macro lens for a trip later this month to begin my trek into the closeup world.

Just to add a thought on VR, you may wind up handholding on occasion even though you're accustomed to working on a tripod. I'm a macro novice myself so perhaps I'm alone in this, but I sometimes get frustrated trying to get the right angle on a subject using a tripod and I end up handholding instead. A tripod also causes other annoyances when shooting up close: the legs bump the subject, the minimum height is not minimal enough, etc. So VR could come in handy from time to time. [I don't have VR or IS on my macro, but certainly wouldn't mind it.]

I'll second Phil's VR comments. I don't own a tripod (yet) so everything I do is handheld, and frankly there are some shots that would be extremely tough to get with a tripod. Plus, as previously stated if paired with a TC for extra focal length, you can shoot a surprise subject that shows up wihtout re-orienting your tripod etc. etc.

Bill: I have a Minolta 100 macro that is far and away the sharpest lens in my bag and a joy to work with since its light and fast. It was my first true macro lens and my first love. It hardly sees the light of day though since I bought a 200mm macro that literally lives on my camera as the default optic for 95% of my Flora and Macro shooting. The narrower field of view and greater working distance make it easier to compose and if I'm after critters the longer reach is a big plus. Another huge benefit of long lenses over the 90-100 lengths is that the long lenses have tripod collars which I find to be an indispensable compositional aid. The auto focus on the 200 is glacial compared to the 100 but about the only time I ever use autofocus is if I'm hand holding and chasing a butterfly or dragonfly. For my flower work another thing I like about the 200 is that I can activate the DOF preview with a button on the lens barrel instead of the camera body. I'm not sure how that works for Nikon/Sigma but you'll find yourself using the DOF preview a lot if you really get into it. I'm not yet into image stacking so I work pretty hard to get my DOF right in camera. I'll never give up the 100 and use it for any other image requiring that focal length but for flowers and bugs IMO the 200/180s can't be beat.>=))>

I will echo what Bill has offered. I own the exact two lenses he does and can amplify the statement of which one I use. The 100mm is an EXCELLENT lens but the 200mm offers so much more versatility. Rent/borrow and compare.

Tim
Concrete, WA

" If I need VR for other shooting I can simply use my 70-200 VR."
Add a 1.4X or 2X TC to that and you have a great macro lens without spending huge money. I do that with my Canon 70-200 IS and it works fine. Still focuses down to 4.6 feet. Give it a try before you plunk down a ton of cash.

I love my Sigma 180 macro. Granted, I do not have much to compare it with, but I was not a big macro shooter before I bought it - now I am.

I use a tripod 95% of the time. I agree with Bill, the tripod collar is wonderful.

Nathan

The Tamron 180mm Macro is a great lens, sharpest macro I have used. I do believe the Sigma 180mm has been discontinued, they may be coming out with a new version.

Thanks again for all the interest and advice - lots to think about. I'll continue to explore all my options, and I've had an offer from a friend to let me borrow his Sigma 180 to try out. Will do this within a few weeks. Thanks once again - any other comments and advice welcome!!

I have a D2Xs also and use the Nikkor 105....I can't say enuf good things about this lens. One thing to consider is whether you plan on staying with a cropped sensor camera. If so then I would stay in the 100 mm range as it gives you a nice working distance. If you plan on going with a full frame camera at some point in the near future I would probably opt for the 150 or 180. For me personally, a 105 on a full frame camera would not give me the working distance I need to control the light falling on the subject the way I like to with the use of reflectors, diffusers etc.

Bill, no one has mentioned it yet but another alternative ( a little more in cost) is the 85 PC Micro. The current "E" model is more expensive but allows meter coupling. The older 85 PC requires stop down metering but is just as sharp. The advantage of this lens is that it has tilt and shift capability. This allows you to control where you place the plane of focus and allows more unique perspectives with this capability (similar to the movements on a view camera). It goes to half life size which is usually more than enough for the type of photos you mentioned. I have the Nikon 60 AFS Micro, the 85 PC Micro, the 105 AFS Micro and the 200 AF Micro and the 85 PC is my most used lens. Some non macro lenses do great macro shots as well. I use my 300 F4 AFS lens for macros of a lot of flowers and insects. It focuses to just over four feet which gives nearly one half life size images.

I do quite a bit of macro photography with a Nikon system. I've had a 200 mm macro lens since my film days and it is the most comfortable lens for me to shot macro with. I recently made a point of using my old manual focus 105 again. The decrease in "working distance," ie the distance between the camera and the subject, convinced me that for my working style, 200 mm is better.

Tell you what though, that manual focus 105 mm is a sharp lens.

Pete D.

As much as I advocate using a tripod for macro work, there are definitely times where it would be nice to go handheld. A 100 is handholdable, which leads to the temptation to do so. If that is the focal length you choose, the VR would be good to have (budget considerations aside). I'm actually considering the purchase of the Canon 100 IS maco specifically for that reason, but my primary macro setup will continue to be the 180 on a tripod.

Bill like Nathan said, the Sigma 180 is an excellent lens, i myself shoot the canon 180 and it rivals it's quality at half the cost? Its true that the working distance of a 180 is a bit longer that the medium range macro lenses but I've found that to be an advantage more frequently than a disadvantage.
And I'm sure that when you lend it from your friend you will get a feeling for the working distance.
One more thing, it's generally more easy to isolate a subject with a longer focal length and especially in macro this can be a huge plus.

Wim

Over the years I've used macro setups with Leicas and Nikons in various combinations of glass. With the Leicas I preferred using a bellows over extension tubes, but when I went to Nikon the Micro Nikkors seemed the best way to go. The 60mm f/2.8 gave great images for copy work, but the working distance was too short for outdoor stuff. Even the 105mm wasn't as much as needed, sometimes. So I "bit the bullet" and thought I'd go for the 200mm Micro Nikkor, but then I read about the 85mm tilt-shift Micro Nikkor and became intrigued about the possibilities.It has now become my favorite macro lens with its control of DOF and perspective. Well I didn't gain working distance but I found that my 300 f/4 and extension tubes filled in when I really needed more.