Which is the Best NIKON Macro lens

[windjammer]

Hi,

Just wondered if anyone had any views on this as about to part with some hard earned cash!!!

It will be on the D300 to start with then the D3...

Currently have the Nikon 105

Thanks

Regards

Sam

[Robert O'Toole]

The Sigma 150 F2.8 APO EX has been working like a dream on my D300, its a fine balance between IQ, cost and features. The Sigma 180 is supposedly excellent also. The 200/4 Nikkor is an older design and is very well made but the IQ isnt near the top but the cost definately is. The Tamron 180 IQ is superb but since the lens uses a non Ultra sonic motor the AF is noisey and slow.

Maybe the best bet would be to visit a big camera shop with your body and try a few lenses. If not try Photozone.de for some advice on IQ and performance.

Robert

[Jim Fenton]

I find the Sigma 150 2.8 to be every bit as good as the Nikon 200 f4 and a whole lot more versatile.

It works excellent with the Sigma 1.4 TC.

Last summer, while photographing terns and laughing gulls flying into their nests at close range, I used this lens on my XS bodies and it focussed plenty fast enough and worked like a charm....hence the versatility.

[Eric Silvi]

I have the Nikon 60mm, 105mm, and 200mm 'micro" lenses. The 200 is by far my favorite. Great quality in the photos and I like the increased working distance.

[Alfred Forns]

Another strong vote for the Sigma lens !!!!

btw please send me your full name so I can do the profile update We are trying to have all members with full name Thanks !!!

[Mike Moats]

Hey Windjammer, I use the 180 Sigma with excellent results, and at a much better price than the Nikon 200.

[Gyorgy Szimuly]

A bit turning away from the original question. What would you choose if money doesn't count? :)
Szimi

[Larry Daniel]

I prefer the 70-180 zoom.

[Doug Campbell]

Since you asked about Nikon and not third party lenses I'll throw my 2 cents worth in and go along with Eric. I've owned all 3 and the 200 is hands down the best.

[nzmacro]

That 105 you have already is nice. From what I've seen from that Sigma, I would honestly go for that. I would find that a nice balance for distance. Don't want something that makes you back up 10 feet and puts you over a cliff now do we. For me I find the true challenge and buzz is from getting as close as I can to a subject so its eye to eye and not from 5' away. Thats the challenge for me personally, so I would go with a Nikon 60mm micro, just to be different.

BTW, the best macro lens is always the one you didn't get, you know, the one the other guys has, or the one that comes out a week after you just got your's. Thats the best one of all. :cool: ;)

Danny.

[Mary Stamper]

I own the 200 AF and the 105 AIS (manual). I used to own the 60AF, but just sold it so I can get the new 60AFS. I've also used but never owned (and never will) the 105 VR.

They'll be prying the 200 out of my cold, dead hands as they say. That lens is just a dream to use. Manual focus is as it should be and I've no hesitations about using it wide open, something I wouldn't want to do with either the 60 AF or the 105VR. I've never heard anyone other than Robert above say that the image quality wasn't about as good as it gets. Byorn Rortlett considers it one of the finest Nikkors ever made and gives it a 5/5 rating on the D2x. That said, I probably wouldn't have it if I hadn't snagged one for $900 used.

I'm one of the few that dislikes the 105VR. It's a great portrait/closeup lens, but a mediocre macro lens IMHO. I prefer the older manual 105. It's sharper at macro distances and was built for manual focus instead of manual focus being just an afterthought.

I'm totally excited about getting the new 60 sometime soon.

Never used a Sigma or a Tamron, so can't comment, though I've seen plenty of good photos from them.

The one that really makes me drool though is the Zeiss 100. But I'll have to keep drooling because I can't afford it. :)

[Robert O'Toole]

They'll be prying the 200 out of my cold, dead hands as they say. That lens is just a dream to use. Manual focus is as it should be and I've no hesitations about using it wide open, something I wouldn't want to do with either the 60 AF or the 105VR. I've never heard anyone other than Robert above say that the image quality wasn't about as good as it gets. Byorn Rortlett considers it one of the finest Nikkors ever made and gives it a 5/5 rating on the D2x.

That would be Bjørn Rørslett :)

For the record I didnt say the AF Nikkor 200mm Micro it was a bad performing lens, but really the premium cost of the doesnt match the IQ and the features/design :)

Also a great lens performance on a DX body like the D2X rarely translates the same IQ performance on a FF format body like a D3 (as the OP asked about). Basically the DX format sensor only uses the center sweet spot and doesnt make the same demands in regards to sharpness.

I would love to use a AF Nikkor 200mm Micro, but I wouldnt buy one or recommend one.

Robert

[Mary Stamper]

Robert,

I didn't say that you said it was bad. Your statement that "the image quality isn't near the top" is highly ambiguous to say the least. And you are the only one that I've ever heard say that the 200 wasn't the top of the heap, even if by only a small margin. No intention of picking a fight or anything here. And as I also said, I own mine because I got a decent deal on it used. I'd likely not buy one new either. Sad part about it is that if Nikon revises it, I still doubt that I'd buy it, because they'll probably make it a G lens and leave us with no extension tubes for it. And they'll make it AFS for the butterfly shooters and make the manual focus sloppy like they did on the 105. Personally, I'll shoot butterflies with my 300 AFS and keep the 200 macro for what it was designed for.... :)

[Robert O'Toole]

Mary,
The aim of BPN is to help and inform people. The great thing about a site like this with people contributing from all over the world is that everyone has different feelings and advice. Obviously I have hit a sensitive spot Mary, sorry for that. No need to get defensive, I am just here to help :) Obviously you recommend your 200 Nikkor and no one is trying to change your mind. Dont worry :)

People have personal feelings associated with the gear they buy. Thats human nature. Being a professional I consider my gear to be just that, just gear with no emotional attachments whatsoever. I try to always give advice as I see it without any influences.

The best of luck windjammer and enjoy what ever lens you choose, let us know which one you buy.

Robert

[Bob Reimer]

I'm a big fan of the 70-180 Micro and wish I'd bought a second copy before they went out of production. One was recently available from the Equipment Lady. The 70-180 Micro has a unique design and is a very versatile lens. My copy is soft at infinity but great close. Thom Hogan is another fan of this lens.

Because my copy is soft at infinity, I tend to use the 80-400 VR with a 77mm Canon 500D as my walking around macro in daylight hours. The 70-180 has higher IQ though close up and I really should use it more when I'm out mainly doing macros.

[Scott A. Flaherty]

I usually use a Sigma 180 macro in conjunction with a 1.4x teleconverter with my D200. Works perfectly for the way I like to shoot marcos.

[Robert O'Toole]

Interesting to hear Scott. I have heard this is a way sharp combination.

Robert

[Gus Cobos]

I have all three Nikkor macros; and the 200mm macro Nikkor is a killer...:cool:

[James Shadle]

You can't go wrong with a Nikkor, Sigma or Tamron macro lens.
That is pretty much the bottom line.

I use the Tamron 180mm macro and Blake uses the 90mm macro.

The build quality is outstanding and the sharpness is WOW.
The lenses AF performance is not a big deal to me, I don't AF in marco very much. I set the manification ratio and just move in or out.
I was however suprised at how fast it did AF when needed.

James

[Jim Fenton]

I've owned the 200 f4 and while it's a great macro lens, it isn't great for a whole lot of anything else (landscapes at f8 are OK) and it's twice as pricey as the Sigma.

The Sigma has excellent bokeh, works swell with a Sigma 1.4 TC, is fast enough that I frequently use it for close in flight shots of larger birds, does wonderful head shots and is a great macro lens.

[Jim Fenton]

I just bought a new one as I had to sell the last one.....and this one compared to a Nikon 200 f4 AFD is every bit as sharp and has just wonderful OOF characteristics.

[Gene C. Callison]

How is the MF on the Sigma 150? Does it focus like a good macro lens should? I have a 105 Nikon on order and I am already having doubts on whether I bought the right lens for a D3 and D300.

Gene

[Robert O'Toole]

You can't go wrong with a Nikkor, Sigma or Tamron macro lens.
That is pretty much the bottom line.

I use the Tamron 180mm macro and Blake uses the 60mm macro.

The build quality is outstanding and the sharpness is WOW.
The lenses AF performance is not a big deal to me, I don't AF in marco very much. I set the manification ratio and just move in or out.
I was however suprised at how fast it did AF when needed.

James

James you are right on with your comments. The Tamron 180 was my favorite lens for years and years!

But you left out one factor.

There is no FOCUS LIMITER and the Tamron! This factor, and to a lesser degree USM AF motor, is why I sold mine and why I am sticking with the Sigma 150.

Robert

[Robert O'Toole]

How is the MF on the Sigma 150? Does it focus like a good macro lens should? I have a 105 Nikon on order and I am already having doubts on whether I bought the right lens for a D3 and D300.

Gene

Gene,

No, Its better than Good, The Sigma is amazing!

• Quick and silent USM AF motor
• Full time manual, no MF clutch or MF switch
• 2 AF distance limiters
• Wide and dampened MF ring

And the lens is reasonably priced.

Robert

[Gene C. Callison]

Thanks Robert, I recieved the 105 yesterday but your comments and approval of the Sigma are very convincing. I think I will return the 105. Thanks again!

Gene