Your experiences with macro lences

What is a good macro lens compared price to technique ?

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro or better
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM ( much more expensive )

other suggestions ? For Nikon of course ...

All dedicated macro lenses are very good optically - so you can't fault there..

What Nikon do you have ? Because if you don't have focus motor built in on your camera, you will need the HSM version to get autofocus (this will be on D40/D60/D3000/D3100/D5000/D5100)

Myself I use the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro HSM and Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8 Micro, and can recomment the both..

D5100

Thx for reply! Will have a look at Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8 Micro , I do not recognize this one, yet.

Just remember, you get a shorter working distance with a 60mm, than with a 105, or a 150mm

So, if you want close up pictures of snake heads (venonmous), I would recommend at least 105mm.. (i.e Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 Micro VR or the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro HSM)

I have/had
Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO
Sigma 180mm F3.5 APO MACRO EX IF / HSM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

I would suggest to test the sigma first.. Sigmas are usually ok but after time you need something "more".. At least I did.
I didn't like the 105mm (I bought the canon 100mm) the 180mm is good and I still have it.

If you can get your hands on Nikon 105mm f2.8 IF-ED VR AF-S Nikkor try that one or perhaps Tamron SP AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro before buying sigma.

Not sure how the stabilazer works at sigma but in macro/close up photography even a slight movement can ruin your shot. Smile

So if it helps, choose that one..

My favorite is the Tamron 90mm macro. I'll either be picking up another soon to pair with my Nikon D7000 (my last one got stolen along with all my other photo gear) or I'll be picking up the Tokina 100mm. They're both extremely sharp and pretty quick lenses and both available in Canon and Nikon mounts as well as Pentax and Sony I believe.

The Nikon (Nikkor) 105mm VR is a fantastic lens as well but it's around twice the price of the other two which I just can't afford currently.

As a nikon user I have a 105mm, 60mm and will get the new 40mm today.

Most dedicated macro lenses are very good and sharp but as Thor said in his post the shorter the lens the closer you are likely to be so if its for venomous there could be a safety issue.

Nikon also do a 200mm macro which is a superb lens but VERY expensive.

I'll be posting some images shortly with my 40mm lens

Good luck and have fun what ever you get

Regards

Graeme

One thing to remember is that at least the Tokina 90mm and the Sigma 105mm extends while focusing.. this might be an issue with easily spooked animals

Nikon 105, Nikon 60 and Sigma 150 do not extend..

Thx guys! I will have a look at the lenses ...

I'm using a nikon 105 micro.
Like it a lot, the only minor is the price...

For cheep you can try the macro "screw on" lenses (just glass, same as uv, polar etc. filters)

Test... Posting

I have recently replaced my Sigma 105 with Canon's 100. The sigma 105 does not have internal focusing so the barrell extends and can be quite noisey, a problem with some nervous macro subjects like butterflies. But it is a very sharp lens with nice colours, as you can expect from most prime macro lenses and depending on your subject and price range, external focusing might be something you can deal with.

Really it is price and magnification you need to consider. I think that 100mm is sufficient in most cases for snakes. You will obviously be able to put more distance between you and the snakes with 150 and 180 but sometimes it might be too much distance and, when including a coiled body or some habitat for example, you might find yourself having to take a few steps back. In most instances where you are photographing a snake you will have some control over it, manipulating it into certain positions etc so dont really want to be standing 6ft away.

Both have fast maximum apertures of f2.8 and can be handheld in good light, it will be harder to handhold 150 or longer because any camera shake is magnified that little bit more (there are IS and OS examples but they're big bucks!). But good light is not always available and to compensate you really need to consider tripods and flashes with macro photography.

As already suggested, extenders and macro tubes might be a good idea to play around with but a dedicated lens and flash will produce excellent results.

Thx guys.
I have tested Tamron 90 mm Di Macro first
after that I decided to send it back and get my hands at a Nikkor Micro 40 mm
( Graemes Vipera berus pic was just amazing )

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rear-fanged/6911290035/in/photostream

I think I will buy another Micro soon Very Happy

Hi
Good choice! I love the 40mm focal length. I use a macro lens mainly for snake head images, and mine is the DFA 100mm/2.8 (I am a Pentax user), 100mm or longer is safer for venomous snakes! For body shots I prefer my pancake lens DA40mm/2.8 Limited, that focus fast and has great sharpness and contrast. For occasions where the light is too low and flash is interdict, a large aperture lens is very handy; I usually use my DA*55/1.4.
It is normally stated that AF is not an important/necessary feature in macro; I agree, but with an exception for snake photography Smile

Good photos!

I'm now shooting the Tamron 90mm and I love it, BUT I'm planning on picking up the Nikkor 40mm pretty soon for shooting salamanders and really small fossorial and semifossorial snakes. (Tantilla, Storeria, Diadophis, etc.)

I'm using a Nikon 60mm f2.8. I wish I have the money to buy a 200mm macro !

I use 60mm and 105mm micro nikkor and they never disappoint me.
I think they are a bit sharper than sigma or tamron, which are good lenses too.
Don't forget to use best appertures (not more than 25 to avoid diffraction)
I'd like to try the new 40mm, it's quite cheap and seem to be very good

Why don't you try the Tamron 90 mm. Macro. Very good lens!

Hi André,

as I said

Quote :: I have tested Tamron 90 mm Di Macro first

Yes it is a good lens, but also heavier and bigger!
The 40 mm is easy to take outdoor and together with a tele it is for me much more comfortable.
A 90 or 100 mm macro will be in my "lens collection" soon again, cause I enjoy it with much light and some beautiful snakes.

This one is taken with 90 mm Tamron
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rear-fanged/6887182385/in/photostream

I have a Tamron 90mm... and my opinion is that it is a very good lens!

Your experiences with macro lences DagjeadderonderzoekmetRolf2011

Your experiences with macro lences DSC09705

Your experiences with macro lences DSC00843

Your experiences with macro lences 26-09-08AddersHavelteHeide_10

Your experiences with macro lences Crotaluslepidusklauberi1

Your experiences with macro lences Viperaberusberus

Some of the pictures I made over the last couple of years...

best regards, Johann

I'm with Thor on this one.

1. you do want reach - snakes don't like a lens up there face and with venomous snakes you definitely want distance... if you use external flash you don't want your body to cast a shadow in the picture.
2. If you can afford it, choose a lens that doesn't extend (internal focusing) - if you are in moist environment they suck moist air in as it extend.

I do love my Sigma 150 mm. (without stabilisation) for the reach (with small snakes this is very important):
Your experiences with macro lences Ingolf

Your experiences with macro lences Ingolf

I do love my Nikon 105 for it's VR (vibration Reduction)
Your experiences with macro lences Butchie001_v4

For full body shots I would use a nomal 50 mm. or a "kit-lens" every lens performs well at +F/8.

» Another squam macro
» Two times macro..
» (Macro)Photography of my Botriechis & Trimeresurus
» Vipera ursinii rakosiensis - close-ups (first play with a macro lens)
» Atheris ceratophora; seeking climatic data of micro- and macro-habitats