Best Nikon macro lens?

[madugo]

Yeah, I was really debating hard between canon and nikon.......which you know is endless.

I settle with the D90 body cause it's a step up for noobs. I wanted a body that I can learn with and still use it was my skills develop. Hopefully I can use it for at least 2 if not three years before I get the bug to upgrade.

Regarding lens, it's exactly like you said. I read a lot of people only pick between canon and nikon b/c they are buying into the lenses offered more so than the body.

ya...i chose canon because imo i do think they make better lens than nikon...
i dont even bother with tamron and sigma because i think they are not better than canon on lens...only non canon lens i would consider would be carl zeiss...but they are super expensive...and most of their lens you have to go with a converter mount to put on a canon or nikon body...that means MF only.. thats just my opinion tho..
one thing too...i dunno if nikon are like canon...if d90 is a aps-c body..and if their 105mm marco is a regular lens but not one design for the aps-c body..your will not get 105mm...but instead like maybe somewhere around 150mm...canon are like that..not sure about nikon...
i prefer buying lens locally...because i can test it out...not all lens are perfect out there...even brand new ones...there are lemons...those wont focus right...or focus shifting...then it will have to send it back to nikon to calibrated it...which is pretty trouble...even more be careful with second hands...the exterior of the lens may looks perfect...sometimes people drop it on carpet...or something like that...you wont see any scratch outside...but sometimes inside will be bad...
there are tools that can test the accuracy of the focus of the lens...
its like a little stand that you make with paper...there are marking on the stand which you focus on and test shot..
i have it if you want it than i can send it to you..
its a pdf file which you just print it off and make it yourself..

[madugo]

So guys, I'm looking at the 105mm f/2.8 AF and the 105mm f/2.8 VR.

You guys think the VR is worth the extra coin?

let me ask you this...are you for sure gonna get a flash and this lens is most likely only gonna for shooting fishes?
if not...
105mm f/2.8 VR is the way to go...
like he said...VR is like canon's IS....if you can get a lens with IS or VR, never get the non IS/VR one if money is not a problem...or the price is not that crazily different..you will find it useful a lot of times..specially in dark environment...but as of fish pics...i m not too sure VR will help you thatttttt much if u gonna use it with flash...because u can go all the way to 2.8 and a flash is gonna help you the most...
but...if dont wanna freak your fishes all the time by using flash...def going with the VR one...my friend got that and she likes it...and i think the VR one got better reputation too right?

[myjohnson]

I'm also looking at the nikon 60mm f/2.8 marco.

What would be the pros and cons when comparing 60/2.8 vs. 105/2.8?

I'm assuming canon lens are comparable, so what are the pros and cons between the 50/2.8 and 100/2.8?

[madugo]

and as of canon's IS technology, they have 4 generations up till now i think. The 4th generation one is their new 100mm marco L IS i think..which is a nice lens but also fancy price...as of canon...generation 3 IS and maybe some generation 2 ones deserve the price differences, but personally i dont think the generation one lens deserves it...but on the other hand...there are not many people still using those old first generation IS lens nowadays...i am sure that nikon 105mm VR is a pretty new lens?

[myjohnson]

let me ask you this...are you for sure gonna get a flash and this lens is most likely only gonna for shooting fishes?

I'm not getting the flash right away but I'm 100% sure I will later. I'm thinking sb900 as a slave and the on board as master. Then I'll get the sb600 as slave and use the sb900 as master. I'm also sure I just want to take pictures of fishes with this lens.

if not...
105mm f/2.8 VR is the way to go...
like he said...VR is like canon's IS....if you can get a lens with IS or VR, never get the non IS/VR one if money is not a problem...or the price is not that crazily different..you will find it useful a lot of times..specially in dark environment

This might be a good reason to get the VR. My tanks got a lot of light over them. You still need to stop by and check out my tanks man. But I also want to take pictures of other peoples fishes when I go on a tank tour or whatever. Those people may or may not have a lot of light over their tanks.

...but as of fish pics...i m not too sure VR will help you thatttttt much if u gonna use it with flash...because u can go all the way to 2.8 and a flash is gonna help you the most...
but...if dont wanna freak your fishes all the time by using flash...def going with the VR one...my friend got that and she likes it...and i think the VR one got better reputation too right?

mj

[myjohnson]

and as of canon's IS technology, they have 4 generations up till now i think. The 4th generation one is their new 100mm marco L IS i think..which is a nice lens but also fancy price...as of canon...generation 3 IS and maybe some generation 2 ones deserve the price differences, but personally i dont think the generation one lens deserves it...but on the other hand...there are not many people still using those old first generation IS lens nowadays...i am sure that nikon 105mm VR is a pretty new lens?

Nikon 105/2.8 AF was replaces in 2006 by the VR version.

[cameracorpus]

The biggest advantage of the aftermarkets, mainly Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina, is that they give Nikon and Canon competition and prices are therefore more competitive. I've never owned a Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma that I've kept, but the Tamron 180mm macro is supposed to be pretty darn decent.

A real advantage of buying the OEM lenses and other accessories is that the factories consider their previous products when making new bodies and other accessories. But they really don't care if the aftermarket stuff works on their new products. Sometimes this has made aftermarket stuff obsolete when it was still pretty young.

Since going to the EOS system, I've stayed loyal to the OEM products, and it has made a big difference. This applies to focus speed and other things you don't automatically think of as well.

Madugo is correct about testing the lenses and not assuming anything. I used to do a lot of testing of antique cameras and lenses, and still test my lenses periodically. I've never had a modern OEM lens out of spec, but I've heard that it does happen. Of course, if you send it in they will dial it in for you no sweat.

Accuracy of autofocus is probably the biggest issue right now. For instance, there may be a 6" range of perfect focus in a picture (depth of field). The autofocus should autofocus in the middle of the 6" range, but they seldom do. You have to do some basic tests to make sure your lens doesn't focus right on the edge of that range when autofocus is used. All my L series Canon lenses have tested perfect, but the more economical ones have been a bit off. Not that they wouldnt' take a good picture, but there was a varience.

[madugo]

I'm also looking at the nikon 60mm f/2.8 marco.

What would be the pros and cons when comparing 60/2.8 vs. 105/2.8?

I'm assuming canon lens are comparable, so what are the pros and cons between the 50/2.8 and 100/2.8?

as or macro...imo get the one with longer range...
50mm is best for portrait shooting....
not that good to be a macro range...
because sometimes you shooting macro, which most people are shooting insects, you can't go all the way to a bee or fly most of the time...
so people just find it more popular to using 100mm macro...
there are some new macro concepts out there now, which are using a 100mm macro lens, and one more 50mm or so, attach the 50mm backward to the front of the 100mm...you will get around 2-3 times magnify, instead of 1:1 like most of the 100mm does...which is pretty fun...i never tried it myself..my friend did...which with pretty impressive results. canon makes 50mm f1.8 which is reallly cheap...like you can get one less than 100 bucks..not sure about nikon...
oh and also...you might even want to invest into a pretty good tripod...its gonna help you a lot too...
a good tripod is not cheap at all..together with a good ball head it can cost up to a few thousand dollars...
but more than likely you wont get those super long ranges lens that are more like shooting birds...those are heavy..so you would need a really good tripod to hold it up...
but just daily use with a normal weight lens...one cost around 100 something would be enough...the brand i am using is pretty good..

[madugo]

mj

truth me...with a good flash and the right setting, even the tank is completely dark...you can still take a good and bright pic..it is just the matter if you can focus right...in dark environments, AF does not work that great...a lot of times it is just better to manually focus with your hand...
like the flash i got..i can go maybe F8 1/1000s and even at -2 exposure, the picture come out still really bright...and my tank is not bright at all...
imo flash is one of the best investments...and they cost around 500 for a reason..
i still recommended you get the VR tho...because it is newer...they replaced the old one for a reason....

[myjohnson]

Seems like I'm about to pull the trigger again and get the nikon 105/2.8.

I'm wait on Donald and see what he says. He has both. He recommend I get the 105/2.8 but I'm reading on other forums that the 60/2.8 is good for fish taking pictures.

[ddaquaria]

What would be the pros and cons when comparing 60/2.8 vs. 105/2.8?

Distance from the subject.

[ddaquaria]

Seems like I'm about to pull the trigger again and get the nikon 105/2.8.

I'm wait on Donald and see what he says. He has both. He recommend I get the 105/2.8 but I'm reading on other forums that the 60/2.8 is good for fish taking pictures.

I prefer the 60, but when you stated you wanted to be 3 feet from the fish, I recommended the 105. Personally, I pull up a chair, make sure my flash is where I want it, and wait. Even the namansi reef chill out after a few minutes, and the fry come out a lot.

[ddaquaria]

truth me...with a good flash and the right setting, even the tank is completely dark...you can still take a good and bright pic..it is just the matter if you can focus right...in dark environments, AF does not work that great...a lot of times it is just better to manually focus with your hand...

imo flash is one of the best investments...and they cost around 500 for a reason..
i still recommended you get the VR tho...because it is newer...they replaced the old one for a reason....

+1

VR/IS stabilizes images from the jiggly effects of hand-holding. It helps replace a tripod for making sharp photos. IS and VR let me shoot in bad light and forget a tripod, except for the most formal night shots.

IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids. [and fish]

To reduce the effects of subject motion you still need to use faster lenses, more light, or a higher ISO.
- excerpt from http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm I take his opinion with a grain of salt, but when looking for a quick definition - he usually explained things pretty well.

If I remember correctly, the 105 VR is optically better than the standard 105. The VR just adds another check in the advantage column for macro work. The 60 that I use is a D version whereas the new one is a G. I'm not sure if the lens quality is better, but is does focus faster with eh AFS system.

Here is my favorite lens evaluator:: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

[madugo]

it would be more value when just in case you want to resell it..and the VR will prove its price one of the days...lol..its like most of the time you may not need it...but when you need it..if it is not there...you will get pissed...
i lilke my 100mm marco very much...but i would be if it has IS...
but thats just talking...i just have to use what i got...because their new 100mm macro is super expensive...
and one more thing tho..do you care about the weight of the lens?
because in most case..2 same lens, one with IS one dont...the IS one is gonna be heavier...

[Gene D]

Thai I just remembered something we all seem to have overlooked. The Nikons do not have full frame sensors which means they all have a magnification factor. The D90 has a 1.5 magnification factor which makes the effective range of a 105mm = 157mm. So ANY lens you chose will actually give you a natural telephoto effect. I know you have made your choice already but I had forgotten to mention that.