What’s Your Preference?

rcooper102 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-04-2010, 07:35 AM

Hey so I recently borrowed a friend's macro lens and LOVED it, I had never really done any Macro stuff before but I had a blast and definitely want to get into it! Anyway I don't have the coin lying around to invest in an expensive macro rig but I have it narrowed down to the following 3 lenses and was wondering if you more experienced macro shooters can help me decide which would be the best option as my first macro lens:

Option 1
Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X M35 Pro DX Macro Autofocus ATXM35PRODXN -
1:1 Magnification
$279
Pros: Reviews really like this lens. Apparently it is unbelievably sharp for its price point
Cons: DX lens, which is fine now since I don't have a full frame body but I do plan to get one at some point which would make this lens useless.

Option 2
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG Macro Autofocus Lens 795306 - B&H
1:3 Magnification
$299
Pros: Very versatile lens, can use it for more than just macro
Cons: Not going be as sharp as the other options, also it is slower. Also going to be bigger and heavier. (plus I already have an 18-200 nikkor so I already have a good all purpose lens)

Option 3
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro ATXAF100PRON - B&H
1:1 Magnification
$399
Pros: Good reviews, apparently it is quite sharp as well. Good Magnification. Also doubles as a decent portrait lens
Cons: Near the upper limits of my budget

Anyway, ya, any insight that anyone has would be very much appreciated. Thanks so much!

daft_biker · #2 (**permalink**) 10-04-2010, 05:18 PM

The Tokina 100mm by a country mile. The 35mm is awfy short and will likely make lighting difficult as there's a bigger chance of the subject getting shaded by the lens being so close. The other one is a superzoom which I wouldn't give a 2nd glance if you're interested in quality.

The Tokina 100mm looks peachy to me....no idea about build quality but the image quality can put more expensive lenses to shame.