In the past the 85mm f3.5 got some flaky reviews by some, but the recent version, if there's any difference has been stellar on a DX body esp like the recent Z50. The min f stop changes as you go toward to 1:1 magnification to f5 but even wide open it's very sharp and at f5.6 it's extremely sharp like sharper than any DX lenses I've experienced. The focus speed has been very snappy as well on Z50. The test that times how long the focus travels from min to max focus is useless. In use when the camera can grab any contrasty subject there's no hunt and just snaps into focus very quickly. In my experience as fast as any AF-S lenses I've used. For DX Nikon bodies, 85mm is an awesome lens! Just wanted to add on here.
Hi ArtoftheImage I'm using a Nikon D5300 and for food shots I use the Nikkor 40 mm MICRO and the Tamron 90 mm MACRO. Both are really good and good value.
I'd recommend the longest macro lens you can afford simply because shorter macro lenses are too close to the subject and block a lot of light. This is especially apparent when using high f stop values of f32 and above where you really need lots of light to offset the tiny apperture. Two recommendations are the Tamron 90mm f2.8 or the Sigma 105mm f2.8. Availible for all the most common mounts and a great second hand buy, both are very good 1:1 macros and are also very sharp standard lenses too.
I started my relationship with Nikon with a D3000 + AFS 18-55mm G DX. Shortly thereafter I learned about the difference between DX and FX, and decided that I would eventually get an FX camera. They guy at my local camera shop suggested that I "invest in glass" while I waited for my FX camera. Following his advice I added a AFS 70-300mm f5.6G zoom, an FX zoom. It worked very well on my DX body. I then added a AFS 50mm f1.4g prime, also an FX lens. Over time I added a micro, the AFS 105mm f2.8G. All worked brilliantly on a DX body. Finally, I got my D600 FX camera. Didn't have to replace my collection of glass. My wife recently adopted my D3000. I added a new piece of glass, the AFS 24-120mm f4G to give her a good general purpose zoom lens to replace the kit lens that came with the D3000. She loves that lens. Also she doesn't know or care that's it too is an FX lens. Eventually, she too wanted to upgrade to a more capable camera. She now has a D810 FX. My story is not unique. Photographers have always upgraded their equipment. That process will continue. Following the advice I was given to "invest in glass" has certainly paid off handsomely.
Ive been using a Tamron SP Adaptall2 90mm f2.5 Macro. It works well both on APS-C and FF. Colours render well and bokeh is smooth. You need an special Tele convertor to make it 1:1, without 1:2 on 35mm sensor. Makes a beautiful portrait lens but being designed for macro the focus throw is very long. The only issue is in the build, all metal body and solid glass makes it heavy, very heavy.
ArtoftheImage I've held the current Nikon version and it's at least half the weight. Like bit slower 2.8 compared to 2.5. At it price on eBay its a good entry level macro
Pure question always you can’t get concrete answer or information from him lol, he should be in touch on actual reference like others doing actual macro application .I would never doubt few veiwers here. He always fired back question to the viewers lol.
I have the 40mm but I don't use it as a "traditional macro" lens. Being 40mm, to get 1:1, your are way close to what you are shooting. However, I love it as my walk around lens (replacing my 35mm) on D5200. For macro, 85mm or 105mm are the right way to go; easier to work with.
I'm pretty new to photography but quickly building a network and therefore getting jobs that I'm not TOTALLY prepared for. I'm used to outdoor portrait work, for which I'm currently using my Nikon D3200 usually with my AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 lens - but nowww I'm being booked to photograph FOOD and PRODUCTS (jewelry, etc) so I know I need to get a bit closer. I'm really hoping to keep my budget under 300 euro for the lens... and I think I'd like to try a prime/fixed lens. Any suggestions though? Micro NIKKOR 40mm f2.8? Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.8? Maybe try Tamron?
On a Dx 5200-5300-D3300 the little 40 is an amazing sharp lens, unless your subject is moving. Then you need either the 85 or the 105 depending on your budget. With the 40 you also need good back or side light to not work in the shadow of the lens & hood..
I had the Nikon 40mm and quickly learned that it just wasn't getting me in close enough, especially when shooting insects. I upgraded to the 105 and haven't looked back. That was 2 years ago. The 105 can't be beat, on an FX body.
I'm a noob and trying to learn my Nikon d5100 camera also trying to learn about photography and will take a class soon. I want to get a good macro lens but only after I have enough knowledge to feel I deserve one. 😊
I am trying to make a choice. The Nikon 85 F3.5 or the Tamron 90 mm micro. Not to put the 40 mm down but getting close to something that might sting or bite is not too good.
Hi Matt Using a kit zoom lens, on a D5200, I noticed that I prefer longer focal length for close-ups. The 105mm was tempting but I decided the 85mm would have to do. I don't do actual macro photography, but for every day close-ups, I am happy with my 85mm. I think the 85mm can even double as a walk-around lens - not just for flowers and stuff. It will be interesting to see what you end up buying. - Robert
Firstly you most certainly *can* use DX lenses on FX bodies. My D800 even has a crop mode that is specific to DX lenses. Otherwise you'd just get a very large vignette which you'd have to crop out. The same applies to using FX lenses on a DX body except that you'll end up with a crop, which you won't even notice because the crop won't show up in the viewfinder. You'll just be throwing away the pixels that would be available on a full frame body Second before buying my Tokina 100mm FX macro lens I did some research. It seems that the objective figures used to assess lens quality are pretty much the same for macro primes no matter who manufactures the lens. I'm well satisfied with the results of my purchase but I suppose some people prefer to have Nikon, which is no bad thing, just expensive. Also according to my research you've got to go to Canon for the very best in macro. The Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens gives a 5 to 1 magnification, most macro lenses give 1 to 1. So far as I know this is the only standard, off the shelf macro to offer this level of magnification. Sadly they only do the lens for the Canon body. You can use macro extension tubes on macro lenses by the way. They allow much closer focussing on the subject but you should think about using off-camera flash to avoid lens shading.
ArtoftheImage I agree completely with your sentiments. I've replaced all my lenses with FXs except my 50 ml but it certainly won't harm your camera or degrade the quality of the image and there is a logic in that as sensors improve the images you'll get with your DX lenses will be sharper and less noisy so it's not a bad compromise for someone who can't afford to upgrade their lenses _and_ their body all at once.
Hey Matt, I have a D5200, and would like to buy my first macro lens. Do you think the Nikon 105mm AF-S would be ok on a DX body? Is there any disadvantage to using a FX lens on a DX body? Thanks!
Hi there! Good review. If You don't mind, I would like to ask You something. I have this lens since a few days and I noticed that Focus ring is not that "soft" like other lenses that I have (For example: Nikon 50mm 1.8). Is this normal? Thank You so much.
Best is to buy an used sigma 180 3.5 apo hsm . For flowers the Tamron's 90 VC is probably better than what nikon has to offer (and probably cheaper price too)
Composition,sharp image quality and speed of focus. =The Nikon 105 micro G Lens is the best buy.I have found that the elements stated above all seem to have equal status in capturing that great shot. Thing is the first element composition can depends on how much control you have over the subject to give you time to compose. Cropping after may be another way deal with that issue.The 105mm Nikon gives a super fast and super sharp image.( D5300) Holds its price really well here in the UK...If you deduct the price your resale price from your purchase prise you get the real cost of the lens. But you still have to up front your cash !!! The 85mm still commands a good price just a bit slower on autofocus..I would say if all you do is marco stuff invest in the 105mm if it aI wanna try it out thing= 40mm and if it something you do but not all the time = 85mm+it is a great portrait lens to. What ever you chose Happy shooting
