A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Affordable Nikon Macro Lens

Affordable Nikon Macro Lens

Max Sherry , Apr 02, 2005; 04:36 p.m.

I'm looking for a nikon Macro lens that would cost around $300 Used ... ANy suggestions on what lens? Thanks!


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Vivek . , Apr 02, 2005; 04:42 p.m.

Check this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BhK6

Get a Viv Ser. 1 90mm f/2.5 lens in Nikon AI mount.

Nikos Peri , Apr 02, 2005; 04:49 p.m.

60mm Micro - worth every penny

Russ Butner - Portland, OR - Vancouver, WA , Apr 02, 2005; 05:48 p.m.


The Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 (Tokina made), and the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro lenses are extremely good. As is the older Vivitar Series 1 105mm f2.5 (Kiron clone, made by Kiron). Any of these lenses can be had for under $200.00 If you look in the klub files, you'll find test results on all of them.


ethan melad , Apr 02, 2005; 05:59 p.m.

why get a vivitar or tokina for $200+ when you can get a nikkor 60 micro for less than $300 used..or get an older nikkor 55 micro for even less.

Anton Russell , Apr 02, 2005; 06:12 p.m.

Work out what focal length you need before deciding. The 55 and 60mm micro nikkors are good value but a lot of people go for the longer focal length because it gives them a greater lens-subject distance and cuts out more background. Also AF or manual?

eric waller , Apr 02, 2005; 06:34 p.m.

Anton Russell - I agree with you wholeheartedly about the 50/60mm macro lenses being too short for much other than photographing inanimate objects like coins and stamps (you really do want the longer length if you are shooting critters), but the question of AF vs MF has always made me chuckle. While I own both the Nikon 105 and 200mm macros (both of which are AF),I daresay that anyone actually shooting macro soons learns that AF is sort of a useless feature.

I also second the motion for the truly outstanding Tamron 90mm/2.8 macro - just a to die for performer optically, but not in the same class as the Nikon's build wise (although most of us do not use our macro lenses to drive nails).

I have also heard good things about the Sigma 180 macro, although I have not personally used it. I tend to prefer longer focal lengths (my 200 gets 4 times the use as my 105), but I have not been overly impressed with the Sigma line of lenses in general. Although thinking about it, the only Tamron lens I have ever used that I felt excited about was the above mentioned 90 macro.

I am sure others will chime in with hands on experience with the Sigma.

eric waller , Apr 02, 2005; 06:36 p.m.

Oops - looks like no one has yet mentioned the Tamron 90. I can tell you that it is a remarkably sharp macro lens with a true 1:1 image. I cannot tell the difference looking at images shot with my Nikon 105 vs. my friends Tamron 90. It ain't cheap, but it is less expensive than the Nikon and except for the plasticky feel, it is a real gem.

Anupam Basu , Apr 02, 2005; 11:30 p.m.

The Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 (Tokina made), and the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro lenses are extremely good. As is the older Vivitar Series 1 105mm f2.5 (Kiron clone, made by Kiron).

Months of lurking on EBay finally paid off when I picked up a Vivitar Series 1 105mm/f2.5 AI-S macro at a decent price. Goes to 1:1 on its own and takes 52 mm filters! I am impressed by the first quick shots out of it.


Tom Holum , Apr 02, 2005; 11:59 p.m.

I own a 55 Nikkor-Micro AIs f2.8, and use it as my everyday walk-around lens... it's bitingly sharp at all distances up to infinity. Unless you need a faster lens for "available darkness" shots, this lens (or the newer 60 Nikkor-Micro AF f2.8) could be a sufficient all-around normal lens for you. I've seen this lens offered on eBay ("Buy It Now") for $175. It only focusses up to 1/2 life size; for life size you need to use a Nikon extension tube (PK-13??) The new 60 Nikkor-Micro AF will focus up to life size without the need for an extension tube.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses