So I'm looking for a decent macro lens for a Nikon D300. Can anyone recommend anything? I haven't used a macro lens since way way back when and I can barely remember it on a film camera. Looking to do great ring shots, flowers, etc. What's the optimum focal length for the 1.5 crop factor? Would a 105 be too long? Any advice would be appreciated!

Cheers

For rings, the 105 would be perfect. If you're doing copy work (like taking photos of paintings or larger things) the 60 would be better unless you had a huge long space.

Thanks Adam, so the 105 comes out to be around a 157mm lens for the conversion on a D300. Any idea what the focus distance is on that for the 300? I'll check it out online, just wondering if anyone has any real experience with the 105 and the 60 on the 300?

We have the 105. It's wonderful. :-)

For rings and flowers, I would go with the 60mm Micro Nikkor. The 105 would be better if you're after insects, as the longer working distance makes it easier to work without spooking the subject.

I have the 60mm and find it to be excellent for non-moving subjects.

I own the 105mm (currently on sale in the Buy/Sell here if you are interested).

Great for details, rings and close-ups

I'm a recent convert and I've been finding that the 17-55 does pretty well.

Here's a shot from last week.

http://www.seanazul.net/blog/wp-content/daisyishmael_5.jpg

I have a 105 and I had a 60. I used the 60 for copy work and I carry the 105 to weddings.

If you want to add the macro focus range you might be better off to add an extension tube to your bag. It's much cheaper and lighter than a lens. Macro lenses have high magnification but what makes them different is being flat field. That is important if you are copying documents but not so much if you are shooting rings or other things that are not flat.

The 105 does 1:1 and has a narrow field of view, which will take in less of the background and makes it easier to have a clean background. VR is am important addition as well. It doesn't help as much for macros as it does for regular telephoto work but it does help somewhat. Working distance is a little over 1 foot at high magnification.

The 60 will shoot 1:1 and is sharper than the 105 in some cases. It's smaller and it also costs half as much. Working distance is a few inches at high magnification.


The 105 is long on a DX body but it is still useful for macros. It is also long enough to replace a 70-200 for your long lens in many cases.

You can also do what I do -- I use a Nikon 5T diopter on the end of my 85/1.8. No light loss (like you get with an extension tube), and full AF and metering (which you often lose with a tube). I have yet to have anyone show me any appreciable difference in quality between using an extension tube and a high-quality, two-element diopter.

Diopters are often called close-up filters or macro lens attachments. If you see a set of three for 50 bucks, they're not going to work too well. High quality ones are between $100 and $200 each. They're much easier to carry than a tube or a macro lens.

Mind you, I'd love to get the 105 or 85 micro. It would be nice to be able to focus at further than 1 foot (you lose focusing ability at longer distances with diopters and tubes). The best one (for what I do) would be the 85mm PC Micro Nikkor, but it's kind of pricey (over $1000). It's also manual focus, but I rarely use AF when doing close-up work.