Which lens is good for a starter?

[andres]

I'm new in digital photography and feeling very interested in shooting some MACRO stuff. I have a 50mm Nikon 1.8 and the 18-135mm with my D80.
Which lens do you guys think would be reasonable to start for MACRO shots... in a reasonable price?!

Thanks

[Sime]

I can't help you with this one, being Canon... I'm sure someone will be along to help.

Sime

[Elmo]

I use a 105 sigma. You will find most all the macros are very good.

You might consider getting a couple of close up lens (diopters) for your existing lenses for a start.

[jdepould]

The other option that doesn't involve buying a new lens would be getting extension tubes, they let any lens focus closer than it normally would, which means you can get closer.

[LandonW]

I am in the same boat. I want the 105mm but it is too pricey. I have gotten decent semi macro with my 80-200mm 2.8 and 17-55mm 2.8, although not true macro. You might try looking at the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di. I have no experience with it.

Good Luck!

[Remi Daigle]

Can we expand this to Canon lenses as well?

[inkista]

Sure. On the Canon side the most-commonly recommended macro lenses are the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($400) and the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($450). They're both superbly sharp as most macro lenses are. The main differences between them are:

• EF vs. EF-S (i.e., the 60mm can't be used on a full-frame body)
• Working distance--the 60mm is better for tabletop macros but the working distance is too small for things that hop/crawl/fly away from your shadow.
• Size - the 100mm is larger than the 60mm.

If $400 is way over your "reasonable price" threshold, then you might want to consider macro alternatives like extension tubes, reversing a lens with a coupling ring (a 50mm f/1.8 is particularly good for these first two), or close-up filters. These are all less expensive than a dedicated macro lens, but you will lose the ability to focus to infinity, and focus will become almost completely dependent on subject distance, so you lose a lot of framing versatility.

The nice part about these "cheaper" methods is that they'll still work in combination with a macro lens if you get one. Here's a macro I did with my EF-S 60mm with my EF 50mm f/1.8 II reversed in front of it with an $8 coupling ring:



I think the cheapest-ever way to do macro if you already have a dRebel, the kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8 II, is to buy a 58mm-52mm macro coupling ring and then reverse-mount the 50 on the front of the kit lens. Although the Pringles can extension tube might be cheaper yet.

[amesis]

I recently purchased the AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED. So far I really like it.

The following are some samples :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amesis/tags/60mmf28/

If you want to get closer to your subjects, you can try to go for the 105mm.

Of course, if you want to save, maybe you should go for the older versions of these lenses.

Good luck!

[joefish]

I've done some macro shots just by holding the lens reversed against the camera body (didn't have any reversing rings). If you're wondering what the photos turn out like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/joefish...7603273740194/

[neevo]

I have got into the whole Macro thing using my trusty old 70-210 and extension tubes. The advantage of this is that the extension tubes are relatively cheap ($150 for the Kenko's but you can get them for as little as around $50 US) and its gets your feet wet. One thing I would point out though is that if you haven't got a sharp lens to begin with then extension tubes are never going to give you amazing results.

Having said that you can get a brand new Sigma 105mm from Hong Kong via that well known auction site for about $375 AU.

This will definately be the next route for me, but I think I am more prepared for a dedicated macro lens now that I have done my apprenticeship on the tubes.

Not only that but I now have the tubes to use with the Sigma when I get it