Nikon 105mm Macro Lens & Alternatives

[mschwarz]

Hi all,

This week, I'll be upgrading from my D60 to a D90 (go go gadget auto-focus motor!), and have money for an additional lens. Right now, I'm focusing in (pun intended) on a macro lens. Clearly the ideal lens that I've been looking at is the Nikon 105mm.

I know Sigma has a couple of lenses, and Nikon also has the newer 85mm lens as well. My key constraint would be to keep the 1:1 ratio. While I could swing the $800 for the lens, I was wondering if folks can recommend alternatives, and their experience on quality differences.

If I get the cost down, then I might be able to consider getting my first light or two for the house! Or, it might just be that I should stick with the 105mm.

Thanks in advance!

[Nicole]

I have the Sigma 105 and love it. There are probably times that I wish I had the Nikon one, but at the time, the Sigma was in my budget and it was available used. The times I wish I had the Nikon are when the Sigma extends to get up to 1:1 magnification. The Nikon doesn't do that. So when I bump into things, that's why I wish I had it. However, the image quality is good and the price may be right. I'd easily recommend it if you don't have the budget for the Nikon.

Oh, and you mentioned adding a flash? I love using off camera flash with my macros, so investing in one (esp. with the D90) would probably really pay off in the future.

[equilution]

I can't say enough good things about the Nikkor 105 micro. It's fast, very sharp, has great bokeh, yadda yadda yadda. The only thing that would make me consider another for my macro is if Nikon would make the equivalent of Canon's 65mm macro, capable of x5 as it is. However, you can achieve the same results with a $160 set of extension tubes. Before I got the 105, I used the 24-85 macro which gave pretty decent results too. One of the most important lessons I've learned in buying all my lenses is when in doubt, always go up. More than once I've been disappointed by erring on the cautious side. Case in point, I bought the 24-120 despite the mediocre reviews, but I wanted the zoom range for my trip to the Reno Air Races. I was less than satisfied with the results. If you're considering the 105 micro, my advice would be to go with it.

[mschwarz]

Thanks, this information is helping!

Originally Posted by Nicole

Oh, and you mentioned adding a flash? I love using off camera flash with my macros, so investing in one (esp. with the D90) would probably really pay off in the future.

Sorry Nicole, I was unclear. I have an SB-600 flash currently. I was thinking of getting a softbox or umbrella light possibly.

[Nicole]

No worries, never sure without more details In that case, you've got your pick of things to decide on! Good luck!

[mschwarz]

So I think I've narrowed it down to two options:

1) Get the 105mm lens
Pros: Great piece of glass, good longer portrait lens
Con: Longer focal length might be restrictive in a lot of indoor macro work

2) Get the 60mm lens + 1.4 teleconverter
Pro: About same cost as 105mm, upside of using teleconverter on other lenses (e.g. 55-200mm), more dynamic range capability with that teleconverter
Con: Not the same quality as 105mm, no VR

So I guess it comes down to what I've heard/read about the great quality of the 105, and the VR capability. I've already got the 50mm prime, so the 60mm is awfully close to that. It might be nice having a 105mm as another portrait lens.

Anyone have thoughts or experiences?

Help me!!!!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by mschwarz

So I think I've narrowed it down to two options:

1) Get the 105mm lens
Pros: Great piece of glass, good longer portrait lens
Con: Longer focal length might be restrictive in a lot of indoor macro work

2) Get the 60mm lens + 1.4 teleconverter
Pro: About same cost as 105mm, upside of using teleconverter on other lenses (e.g. 55-200mm), more dynamic range capability with that teleconverter
Con: Not the same quality as 105mm, no VR

So I guess it comes down to what I've heard/read about the great quality of the 105, and the VR capability. I've already got the 50mm prime, so the 60mm is awfully close to that. It might be nice having a 105mm as another portrait lens.

Anyone have thoughts or experiences?

Help me!!!!

1) For macro work, 105mm is still short. You're only going to get 1:1 reproduction at a few inches anyway. It's not restrictive.

2) I wouldnt use a TC on a macro lens. The IQ hit wouldnt be worth the working distance increase. You also shouldnt be using a TC on the 55-200 because it can damage the lens and would be too slow (aperture wise) for AF.

You would lose the VR capability of the 105, but the VR is almost non-existant at 1:1. It gets less-and-less effective the closer you get. It's not a huge change.

[sk66]

I've got the Sigma 180mm Macro, and it is pretty great.
FredMiranda.com Reviews

I'd recommend it and some light modifiers or even a second sb600

[lil red bird]

Take a look at the sb-900 it is an very impressive flash. Then you can really start playing with the light as the D90 has the CLS built in to the body.

[mschwarz]

For my purposes, I'm good right now with my SB600 for a flash. I'm sure I'll want to add a second flash later once I play with lighting more. My next step is probably to try some DIY lighting (tripod halogen lights with natural light halogen bulbs) and play with some indoor portrait work.