macro lenses

[My2Girls66]

I would like to get a new lens. I've been eyeing the Nikon 85mm 1.8 but I would also like a macro since I don't have one. Would the Tamron 90mm 2.8 be a good alternative to cover the macro part and work for portraits and possibly indoor sports? Or is that asking too much? There is a rebate on the Tamron right now that brings the cost down to $409.95.

 

[Chikabowa]

I've heard wonderful things about that Tamron lens!

 

[Quicklabs]

I don't know anything about this lens, except that the Nikon version is supposed to be a very nice portrait lens. I do know that if you get either one, I would like to see more pictures of Hershey!!

 

[zackiedawg]

I don't know anything about the Nikon, though the specs are good. I don't use Nikon mount, so I can't help there. But I do have the Tamron 90mm F2.8 lens that I use for flower and bug macro (I've had it just a few months now, so I haven't had the chance to play around with it for portraits much yet). It's a super-sharp and crisp lens and has been very nice to use. I'm sure I'll be using it much more. Here's my gallery for that lens, to give a few ideas (in Sony/Minolta mount):

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron90f28

 

[My2Girls66]

I don't know anything about the Nikon, though the specs are good. I don't use Nikon mount, so I can't help there. But I do have the Tamron 90mm F2.8 lens that I use for flower and bug macro (I've had it just a few months now, so I haven't had the chance to play around with it for portraits much yet). It's a super-sharp and crisp lens and has been very nice to use. I'm sure I'll be using it much more. Here's my gallery for that lens, to give a few ideas (in Sony/Minolta mount):

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/tamron90f28

Those photos are great! Thanks for the link. I almost ordered the lens last night after looking when I stumbled upon the new Nikon 85mm 3.5 AF-S VR2 micro to confuse the issue. Nikon vs Tamron, f/3.5 vs f/2.8, VR vs Non VR, $489 vs $409, all respectively. Oiy! I hate when I make up my mind then find something to confuse the issue. I am indecisive enough as it is! I probably should go with price since its something that probably won't live on my camera, I have never done macro so I don't even know how I will like it or how much I will do it.

 

[Chikabowa]

I have the 85mm f.18 and it is a great lens. Razor sharp and a great focal length. It does focus a little slow, but most people wouldn't notice that. I can't say a single bad thing about the lens other than I don't use it much and I probably should use it more!

 

[annnewjerz]

I have the 85 1.8 and am quickly falling in love with it. I'm not a pixel peeper but think it's sharp enough and the bokeh is nice! I got mine used for like $300 and it's been a great investment. I'm on my phone now but can post some recent pictures when I get home if ya want.

 

[annnewjerz]

Ok I'm back home and here are a few I have online.

 

[Onigun]

While I have never used the tamron, I have the 60mm 2.8 nikkor macro and I really like it. Fairly inexpensive as well.

 

[My2Girls66]

Nikon has a new 85mm 3.5VR AF-S Micro. I have that in the mix now. $489.95
The 85mm 1.8 is something I def. want to get someday but am debating whether I want to play with macro now. I have a 28-90mm lens with a macro setting that I should just play with(I know its not a true macro) and get that 85mm 1.8 before my DD goes to France in Sept and I spend that $500 in lens $$ on her trip. I guess I better decide how much I think I will use macro. I lost hours at work, DD is going to be a junior at Boston U and will be studying in France for both semesters this coming school year, the Euro has come down a bit so that will help, my younger DD just finished driver ed and will be getting her license soon so my insurance bill is about to go way up. I have about $500 that I've been saving for something photography related for ME and I want to make sure I spend it wisely because this might be it for a while.

 

[annnewjerz]

Nikon has a new 85mm 3.5VR AF-S Micro. I have that in the mix now. $489.95
The 85mm 1.8 is something I def. want to get someday but am debating whether I want to play with macro now. I have a 28-90mm lens with a macro setting that I should just play with(I know its not a true macro) and get that 85mm 1.8 before my DD goes to France in Sept and I spend that $500 in lens $$ on her trip. I guess I better decide how much I think I will use macro. I lost hours at work, DD is going to be a junior at Boston U and will be studying in France for both semesters this coming school year, the Euro has come down a bit so that will help, my younger DD just finished driver ed and will be getting her license soon so my insurance bill is about to go way up. I have about $500 that I've been saving for something photography related for ME and I want to make sure I spend it wisely because this might be it for a while.

I think you will end up being happy with whatever you get and if you get a macro lens and decide you aren't using it as much as you'd like, you can always sell it and probably make back what you purchased it for.

Truthfully, I purchased the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro a while back and found myself always using it as a regular general purpose lens and not a macro. I just wasn't patient enough for the whole taking the tripod out, trying to wait for a flower to stop swaying in the breeze, etc. I ended up selling it and making my money back and eventually landed on the 85mm f/1.8, which I'm really happy with now.

I've had UWA, fisheye, telephoto, zooms, primes, macro, and all-in-one lenses and I think that the best way to figure out if you'll like something is to try it out for yourself, you never know what you may end up liking most.

 

[My2Girls66]

I think you will end up being happy with whatever you get and if you get a macro lens and decide you aren't using it as much as you'd like, you can always sell it and probably make back what you purchased it for.

Truthfully, I purchased the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 micro a while back and found myself always using it as a regular general purpose lens and not a macro. I just wasn't patient enough for the whole taking the tripod out, trying to wait for a flower to stop swaying in the breeze, etc. I ended up selling it and making my money back and eventually landed on the 85mm f/1.8, which I'm really happy with now.

I've had UWA, fisheye, telephoto, zooms, primes, macro, and all-in-one lenses and I think that the best way to figure out if you'll like something is to try it out for yourself, you never know what you may end up liking most.

I have an 18-135mm, 70-300mmVR, 35mm 1.8 and a 50mm 1.8. I use my 18-135 mostly and really have no problems with it. I tend not to not have patience for tripods either so maybe macro is not for me. I just LOVE some of the bug and flower photos posted here! It would be nice to have the capability to do whatever I felt like at any given moment.
Photography is just a hobby for me so I don't really NEED anything else. I just want one
Thanks for all the replies!

 

[SorcererGrandma]

Can anyone tell me if a macro lens can be relied upon as a general purpose zoom lens? I just wonder if you bought a quality macro lens if it would sere this dual purpose so I wouldn't have to carry around too many items?

Would I be disappointed with the clarity or the speed or the light gathering ability?

 

[kevrab]

Macro lenses are great for what they do but not as a general purpose lens. Main reason is that your depth of field is so small.

 

[VVFF]

Can anyone tell me if a macro lens can be relied upon as a general purpose zoom lens? I just wonder if you bought a quality macro lens if it would sere this dual purpose so I wouldn't have to carry around too many items?

Would I be disappointed with the clarity or the speed or the light gathering ability?

Macro lenses generally focus a bit slower(especially in low light) and are typically "longer" lenses in terms of focal length. I wouldn't use one as a general purpose lens without another lens to complement it. I love my 100mm F2.8L but its much too long to use all the time. Great for portraits though!

 

[VVFF]

Macro lenses are great for what they do but not as a general purpose lens. Main reason is that your depth of field is so small.

Macro lenses DOF is not different than that of a standard lens.

 

[kevrab]

I love my 85mm 1.8. Great portrait lens and it's my main lens for shooting basketball under the net. Tack sharp.

 

[SorcererGrandma]

I'm still confused. Is the consensus that if I buy a macro lens, that I still need a standard lens? It would have been nice to get away with just using the one lens since they cost so darn much.

Thanks for your replies.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I have carried a macro lens as the main lens a couple of times when I also wanted to get macro shots but not carry more lenses. Usually the IQ is very good in them but focus will be slower. DOF is no different with the macro lens. If you are willing to compromise on the speed then yes, you could use it as a general purpose lens. And when I say speed I just mean I wouldn't like to use one for action shots unless in a pinch.

Overall - if I did not do a lot of macro shooting I would get a more general purpose lens though. If you want to do quite a bit of macro shooting then this may make sense for you.

 

[Golf4food]

It would help to know what brand of camera you have and to know what brand of lenses to recommend. Not every maker has a general purpose lens that is also a good macro.

For myself, my Pentax 35mm f/2.8 DA Ltd Macro is a great macro and general purpose lens. Extremely sharp all around and good (not great) in low light. It can serve very well in any situation - macro, portrait, walk-around. It isn't perfect for every situation because you will need a wider angle or longer reach sometimes, but that is true for any lens.

And DOF is adjustable by learning how to use aperture... it does not have to be shallow even on a f/2.8 lens... the 35 Macro can go to f/22 on the other end.