Hi-de-hi campers!

I've recently started taking an interest in photography, so much so I've bought myself a Nikon D70 with a 18mm 55mm kit lens. I've also just forked out for a 70mm 300mm lens. So far I'm pleased with my early fumbles in the black art of pushing a button, but I will say there's a heck of a lot to get your head around isn't there? I'm after some advice on a dedicated macro lens that takes 1:1 pics. I don't want to spend a fortune (well. . . I do, but can't )

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

P.S. Hope you guys are all well, sorry I've not been in for a while.

Hi

The best value Macro lens I can advise is the Sigma 105mm - it'll set you back about £300 and is a very versatile creature. If you can't stretch that far they also do an excellent 50mm lens, and if you read the 'nifty fifty' thread here you may be tempted by that cheaper version. For Macro work though, personally I prefer the 105mm as it means you don't need to get quite so close to the subject to get 1:1 magnification. Both lenses stop down to f/45 so you can get pretty good depth of field with either, if you need it.

I've just bought (arrives today) the Sigma f/2.8 50mm 1:1 Macro EX DG for a few pennies under £240. Its reviews look very favourable and the price is nice too. Being 50mm it will also give you that 'human eye' perspective and with the crop factor will give an equivalent field of view of a 75-85mm (depending on camera) which makes it suitable for some light portrait work.

I cant fork out on a bag of lenses right now so I'm hoping it'll be a jack of all trades i.e. 50mm prime, 1:1 macro, and portrait (I need all 3 for the birth of the baby)

The only downside is at 50mm you have to get physically close to the subject. Thats ok for innanimate objects but if you want to take photos of insects and the like the Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105mm might be a better (although more expensive) option.

Where you been stu?

(8+D

Mark

The first thing I'd have said was steer clear of Sigma macro lenses - they have a nasty habit of stripping the focussing gears. I ended up buying a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro for a penny under £285.

Really? Do you have a source? This concerns me...

[update] A quick Google suggests that this was only a problem with Sony fit models.

http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00UYag

I've had mine for two years now and have had no such trouble.

This was from one of the engineers at my local photographic shop, although he didn't specify any particular mount.

Thanks for the replies guys. I have thought about the Sigma 105, it does have quite good reviews. I'd love to be able to afford the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR
105mm f/2.8G IF-ED, really nice lens but a little out of my range if I'm honest.

@ Dan : Not been far mate, hopefully I'll be around a little more now trying to glean some pearls of wisdom from the camera officionados here.

@ Mr Ark : I take it by the smile you have a D70 too?

I know all about the PC v Mac fanboi wars that go on, can we start one with Nikon v Cannon?

No he has a D3 - Nikon users need to stick together.

Well you're going the right way about it, spelling 'Canon' like that! But I'm not rising to the bait...

Well resisted. There's little point us debating something so one-sided that we'll clearly win... (8-p)

MWHAHAHAHA! I'm going to like this.

I have heard that some of the Nikon AF mechanisms in the bodies really pushed the lens about something fierce, so it's wise to use Nikon lenses on such bodies. These days, I'm not sure if the AF motor is still in the body, or in the lens, or if it's all done by invisible gnomes, so YMMV.

OT, I'm going to miss having a manual aperture ring to twiddle.

Not a bad comparison - the Nikon would have to be the Mac in that argument - well built, intuitive interface, slightly more expensive.
The Canon is generally cheaper...and nastier!...

I feel the maxim "it's not what you've got but what you do with it" stands well in this argument.

Besides, while the Canikon/Nikan argument continues, Sony, Panasonic and Pentax have crept up and begun to eat away at the duopoly. And that's a Good Thing.

For the record, when I made my choice of Canon camera, the equivalent Nikon was definitely in the running right up to the wire. It came down to the image quality comparison, and the Canon edged it. The fact that - at the time - Canon was the only maker in the field with the path to full-frame 35mm sensor goodness also helped.

Now, it's a level playing field. Each type has its strengths and weaknesses, but at the end of the day it's about how you use it, not what you're using.

Well, that's my argument anyway.