| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2007 05:55:07 AM · #1 |
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could suggest a Macro lens that can be used with a Nikon. I don't do many macro shots, but I want to help a friend with some food photography. Any suggestions? I am not looking to spend over 300.00 on the lens.
Thank you in advance! :-) |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 06:01:20 AM · #2 |
well, considering your price limit there's not too much to choose from.
the real good macro lenses with 1:1 magnification like the nikkor 60mm or tammi 90mm are all a bit pricier, but worth every penny!
but for food photography maybe you don't need the 1:1, ig uess 1:2 might be enough.
i have the sigma 70-300, which has 1:2 macro. you can have it for <150$ and in combination with an inversed 50mm you have a super macro with up to 8:1(!!!) magnification...hope that helps
ETA: i just saw you already have the nikkor 70-300, so another lens in that range is not an option. does that nikkor tele already has 1:2 macro? and have you tried the inversed technique as mentioned above?
Message edited by author 2007-11-30 06:05:25. |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 07:01:37 AM · #3 |
| The 60mm micro is a bit above your 300 bucks, but it is an amazing lens and can be used for portraits as well as macros. It is my favorite lens and really is tack sharp but has the most amazing bokeh. |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 10:03:58 AM · #4 |
There are quite a few Nikon micro gems that can be had in your price range, but we are talking manual focus lenses that won't allow metering on your D50. This is not as big a deal as it sounds for your intended use, as your not talking fast action or quickly changing lighting. Just use your histogram.
As for specific lenses I'd recommend the 55mm f3.5 or 55mm f2.8 if you are looking shorter macros, as I'd imagine for food photography. Both lenses are optically better than the 60mm macro and can be had for much less $$. The 3.5 especially can be found for less than $100 in decent condition on ebay.
If you do need longer macro, look at the Nikkor 105mm f4 micro. Optically better than the AF & AIs 105mm f2.8s and doesn't use focal length shortening to obtain magnification. Another great lens for the $$, which is going for about $125-300 depending on condition.
Notes: make sure if you go with a manual focus lens that it is AIs, AI or AI'ed, as non-AI could damage the little lever on the front of your camera that lets the body know that the lens is set to its minimum f-stop.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 10:11:31 AM · #5 |
If its for a friend and you don't do much macro work, you may consider renting and if you enjoy macro work you can make a move to buy something then.
I have the 105 f2.8 micro at my site //www.rentphotostuff.com that is available.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 10:28:28 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
If its for a friend and you don't do much macro work, you may consider renting and if you enjoy macro work you can make a move to buy something then.
I have the 105 f2.8 micro at my site //www.rentphotostuff.com that is available. |
hey, cool site, lots of top notch stuff! i only wonder why you don't have the nikkor 28 f1.4 for rent, because that really would be a lens i'd like to rent for a while...
back on topic, i want to add that you can always go with a set of close up filters that would probably work with your 50mm. cost you lot less than a macro lens, i have no experience with that though, thus have no idea about IQ they produce... |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 10:39:20 AM · #7 |
thanks for the compliment. we just don't have that 28mm yet... we had to pick and choose what we would stock first, Ill keep it in mind as we are always looking to find out what people want and expand our inventory.
Ive used close up filters and they don't compare to a good macro lens. Ive also used cheap macro lenses and although they are better than close up filters they too don't compare with a good macro lens. I have found that photography is very much you get what you pay for. Ive had the sigma 24-70 f2.8 and the canon 24-70 f2.8L. Once I used the L you know exactly why its more money.
I also have spent lots of money on lenses that I replaced because I tried to save a buck and get a cheaper model thinking it will be adequate. Don't spend $200 on a macro that you will replace. Wait a while, save some cash and get the good stuff.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:42:53 PM EDT.
