Another Dumb Lens Question

[chuckinsocal]

Hi Gang,

I'm looking at trying macro photography for times when I just can't get away to do a real shoot. What should I look for in a decent but inexpensive (if there is such a thing) macro lens for my D80?

Thanks in advance.

[ziggy53]

I tend to recommend true macro lenses of 90-100mm or so.

The Tamron SP AF90mm, F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro is a great lens for not too much money as is the Sigma 105mm, F2.8 EX DG Macro.

[Photoskipper]

Can try the followings with very low cost or even no cost:
1. Reverse the lens-give a very good magnification.
2. Stack up 2 lens - reverse the lens at the far end
3. Use a +2 or +3 close up lens,
4. Add an extension tube to any lens.
Image quality may not be great but fun to play with.

[chuckinsocal]

:huh Wow ... those lenses are around $450 ... I'm not sure I can justify that much money just to take pics of some bugs in my yard. I guess I gotta find something else to do when I can't get away. Thanks, Ziggy, for the education.

[chuckinsocal]

Thanks PhotoSkipper but my existing lenses are not compatible with any of your methods. I wish they were.

[jonh68]

If under $300, you can get a used 60 mm 2.8.

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?groupsku=NA06009043252N&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=&item=20&ActivateTOC2=&ID=23&BC=NA&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

If you order the BGN and it's not acceptible, you can always return it. I have used a beat up version of this lens so it seems to take a beating if you decide to go with a well worn version.

[Tee Why]

Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro's are about $250 new.

[chuckinsocal]

Thanks John ... I'll start scrounging around for something used.

[chuckinsocal]

Thanks TeeWhy ... I'll take a look at that option.

[Cygnus Studios]

The Sigma 28mm-90mm macro is a decent lens.

The Sigma 70mm-300mm Macro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper%28ds%29&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&shs=&ci=10209&at=Brand_Sigma&at=Lens+Type_Macro&basicSubmit=Submit+Query) is also a pretty decent lens.

[ziggy53]

The Sigma 28mm-90mm macro is a decent lens.

The Sigma 70mm-300mm Macro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper%28ds%29&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&shs=&ci=10209&at=Brand_Sigma&at=Lens+Type_Macro&basicSubmit=Submit+Query) is also a pretty decent lens.

Both of those lenses are really capable of "close focus", not true macro. I call this "marketing macro" because the premise is that when these close focus images are printed to at least a 4" x 6" print, the subject will be larger than lifesize.

A true "macro" lens should be capable of 1:1 magnification on the image plane of the camera. A few people stretch that to include 1/2 lifesize but I prefer to think of macro as lifesize or better in the camera.

If you just need images of flowers and such then close focus may be good enough. Those lenses would open up new opportunities, but require fairly small apertures to yield good sharpness.

True macro lenses will almost always be much sharper, even bitingly sharp.

[Photoskipper]

Thanks PhotoSkipper but my existing lenses are not compatible with any of your methods. I wish they were.

Check on this links :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/353212395/
http://www.crestock.com/forum/Topic436-7-1.aspx
http://blog.dsignbeyond.com/2008/02/simple-reverse-lens-macrography-howto.html
http://www.pbase.com/serenab/reverse_lens_experiments

For Close-up lens:
http://www.alanwood.net/photography/close-up-lenses.html

It will not cost you too much.

[chuckinsocal]

Thanks Calnumismatist ... that's a great find for $90. I almost jumped on it until I realized that I already have a 70-300 VR so that part would be a waste plus it only magnifies to 1:2. If I'm gonna do this at all, I'd like to do it right.

But, thanks again.