View Full Version : New SLR for Macro. Under $1000?
11/15/2005, 09:35 PM
Hello all - I am finally ready to take the plunge and buy a new camera. This will be the first decent digital camera I am buying so I am a total rookie.. With everything I have read on here and dpreview I think I narrowed my choice down to the Nikon D70.. Any suggestions for a good lens for macro shots? Anyone think I am going the wrong way with the D70? As I said this is my first decent camera and its kind of intimidating, any suggestions would be appreciated!
11/16/2005, 07:32 AM
D70 = great decision, I'd also suggest some good RAW capable software, something like Capture or if you already have it, PS will work...
nikon, sigma, and tamron all make good macro lenses, but they ain't cheap!
sigma's 105 runs for around $400.00
nikon's 105 is closer to $650.00
tamron's 90 is close to $500.00
from what I've heard, read... the sigma is a great deal and a very sharp lense... You will also want a nice tripod and those run for $100.00+... it's an expensive hobby! :)
however, I don't think you could get the sigma and the d70 for under $1,000.00 ... a great lense for fish is the standard 50mm 1.8, it only costs $100.00, but you won't be able to get those absurd macro's where you can see the individual hair cuts on SPS polyps... :D
11/16/2005, 11:16 PM
The Tamron 90 macro is lengendary for its optical quality, but its build quality isn't so hot. The sigma 105 better build than the Tamron, but optically it's slightly worse.
If budget is an issue, I would go with the Tamron. The 90-105 range is great for tank photography, they are light and handles well. I would pick the macro lens over the 50mm because macro lens are much more versatile.
11/17/2005, 09:52 AM
Thanks for the help guys. Its taken me so long to buy a new camera because I want to see crystal clear SPS hairs!! :D I am definitely going to go with the D70, but im still a little lost about the lens. Im not on a budget , but I rather spend $1500 on my tank which is my hobby as opposed to a camera for pictures of my hobby. Does that make sense? I dont really plan on making photography a hobby of mine (I dont think) so thats what makes it a little tough spending $1500 on a camera and lens. But you do what you gotta do, if thats what its going to take to get amazing tank images, thats what I will do. So if I were to pick up the D70 and the Tamron lens (this is the better more expensive lens, right?) would I be able to get normal shots with the macro lens? Or would I have to have another lens just for ordinary shots? Where is the best place to purchase a higher end camera? Should I stick with B&H, Ritz or another reputable online shop, or should I just go to a local camera shop?
You guys are great, thanks again!
11/17/2005, 02:05 PM
Brian, macro lens can focus all the way from infinity to 1:1 magnification, in addition, they are usually of exceptional optical quality (flat field etc), thus they work very well as a normal lens too. However, because macro requires very careful focusing, typically the AF is purposely made to be slow and move in smaller increments, thus you will find macro lens typically focuses slower than a non-macro lens. This isn't an issue unless you intend on taking photos of sport or little kids with it.
I rather spend $1500 on my tank which is my hobby as opposed to a camera for pictures of my hobby. Does that make sense? I dont really plan on making photography a hobby of mine
Makes perfect sense, one would be crazy to contemplate 2 expensive hobbies, but then again the D70 and macro lens wouldn't mind nitrate, ammonia and they get along extremely well with any other expensive lens you care to buy in the near future ................ If you decide the macro route, tread CAREFULLY, macro is more addictive than narcotics, no one ever recovers from being bitten by the macro bug. In photography, good stuff (DSLR excluded) tend to retain their resale value much better since the demand is higher. The tamron is so sharp it iwll cut your eyes.
B&H is reputable and the pricing are competitive, order from their website.
11/17/2005, 06:50 PM
I recently bought the Nikon 105mm macro lens for my D70 and the combination is awesome. I also started shooting in RAW format and I found the free version of RAW Shooter online. It is a great, easy to use program. You can change anything from white balance to exposure setting in the program. Easier to use than PS too IMO.
12/06/2006, 08:42 AM
Alright guys I FINALLY got an SLR. I decided to go with the D80 and from what I have done so far I am VERY happy with it. I am in no means a photographer and the shots I have taken so far look amazing!
I am looking at picking up this Tamron Macro 90. This is still one of the best on the market for under $500 right?
Thanks again for the help everyone, and when I get some nice Zoa shots I will post them here!
12/06/2006, 12:33 PM
Never tried any of the three sugested macro lenses to be honest however If you're willing to pay a bit more I guess the Nikon 105 VR is worth considering. I know the VR will not correct for motion towards or away from the object which is more destructive in macro however comparing my 18-200 VR to using another lens without VR (which I'm using now because I broke my 18-200) just prooved tom e ow important VR is. even using the 50mm 1.4 is not as good (at least and maybe only for me) as having the VR as usually I'm not yet really successful at nailing the focus at really large aperture. maybe others could advise on this however I just thought it's worth considering.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.