Questions for photographers (macro lens)

[Paradoxica]

To start off, I know almost nothing about photography.

My dad is pretty into it though and his birthday is next month, so I'm thinking about buying him a cheap macro lens. It doesn't have to be fancy because he's never used macro. I just don't want it to be a total waste of money (of which I have little). I'm thinking maybe something refurbished, unless there is a good beginner level one for cheap?

All I know is that he has a Nikon digital SLR. I'm sure there are more specs I need to find out, but what?

Any info or recommendations would be appreciated.

 

[Mime454]

I'm rubbish in this field, but I'd imagine that knowing how much money you have to spend beyond "cheap" is required.

 

[Paradoxica]

That's probably true...

Maybe $200.

 

[MandellaMandy123]

A good macro lens will really set you back, which is why I don't use macro on our SLR camera. I took all the pictures in my avatar and signature using the zoom. You could try macro filters, little magnifying filters which you screw onto the front of the lens, but be sure to get the right size They take some getting used to, but I have a set and they work ok

 

[OctoberRainne]

I'm actually selling my 50mm for nikon right now actually on ebay for like 300$,the lens depends on what you want to shoot really,I now perfer the longer lenses like the 90,105,180mm macros ect. because you can shoot full length shots as well and back up to get more space,so on the smaller mms like the 50s and 65mm you are working a lot closer to the subject and even closer when you add on tubes or converters & filters. I've never tried the 70-300mm for macro but I know they tend to run a lot cheaper and you'd be much farther away with that as well if need be. Should be able to find any of those for under 500$ used though if you go off brand like Sigma

 

[OctoberRainne]

Forgot to add you can buy the Raynox -250 macro filter that clips onto most lenses and try that,it works beyond any other magnifying filter I've personally tried,idk how close it will get you on a normal lens though but they run under 100$ so well worth the try*

 

[Paradoxica]

I was just looking at a few sigma lenses, are they decent? keep in mind this is not a pro setup, this is more to see if he likes being able to use macro (and maybe i can get him to take some pics of my bugs :shifty: )

 

[Paradoxica]

Forgot to add you can buy the Raynox -250 macro filter that clips onto most lenses and try that,it works beyond any other magnifying filter I've personally tried,idk how close it will get you on a normal lens though but they run under 100$ so well worth the try*

How similar would that be to an actual macro lens?

 

[OctoberRainne]

I currently use sigma for macro,and the quality has never let me down,they come out just as sharp I think and the lenses are much lighter and smaller and half the price you'll pay for actual Nikkor lenses. The Raynox filter will get you pretty close maybe even too close on some lenses so that is hard to tell,I use it coupled with a macro lens to get more extreme close ups,they make one that is less powerful though i think like a Raynox 150 or so that might be the way to go if you're going to put it on say a portrait type lens that shoots 18-55 or bigger. I say the actual macro lens is worth it though,I think you could find a sigma one used for around 200,and if you want to get closer with that lens he can add on tubes or a filter,sadly nikon is slacking on macro gear so there are not too many options. I believe all of the lenses shoot at 1:1 max on their own anyways so it won't matter which focal length you go with unless you want to be able to shoot a dragonfly over a foot+ away ect. If you're able to find a sigma macro lens for Nikon I say go for that

 

[Paradoxica]

I was just looking at the Raynox 250 and i think that might be the way to go (at least at first) It seems pretty universal as far as fitting on a standard nikon (right?) or should i try to covertly find out the size of current lenses. Also, about how close to the subject would he have to be? Or would that entirely depend on the lens underneath it?

 

[OctoberRainne]

Really depends on the lens,but that filter should clip onto just about any lens diameter size. Its just really powerful so it makes you be really close and everything gets really big. If you can find out what he currently has would help. OK so wow I just put the Raynox on my portrait lens which is 18-105 and it clamps on but it gave me a ring around the subject from the filter being smaller than the lens glass,so if you have a wide angle lens that is not going to work out,it gets you pretty close,I bet if you had the 18-55mm instead which is half the size it will work just fine,I say find out what lens he has first

 

[Paradoxica]

Ok, I'll try. Thanks so much for your help.

 

[OctoberRainne]

You're welcome,hope that helps,thats the problem with buying before you try,If he has a big lens that filter might give him a nasty black halo on every pic,minus that it does work quite well even with auto focus on a portrait you will have to move much closer tho

 

[agent A]

i have an old cannon powershot camera if u want it, it's a simple point and shoot but it has a macro feature that doesnt work half bad, here r a few pics i took with it:

if u have any questions feel free to pm me

 

[mantid_mike]

My dream lenses @ the moment are the Canon 100mm USM L series and the 85mm f/1.2 Mark II.

 

[Paradoxica]

Alright, through a long and very complicated act of trickery I was able to find out about his lens without him knowing why...

its a Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens.

will that be compatible?

 

[OctoberRainne]

Yeah thats a really small lens diameter of that lens,the filter should fit on that one without a shadow ring.Idk how close it will make him shoot though,or if it will be close enough for macro but the 250 one is a lot stronger.I can't say what it will look like on that lens,but worse case if it doesn't work he can sell it and go for a real macro lens in the future.

If you go with the filter i highly suggest getting him a really cheap diffuser,because the glass is really bright,I reccomend one period for anyone using any kind of flash on an SLR especially for macro though.

Here is the cheapest flash diffuser you can get for the on camera one http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-Diffuser-Olympus-On-Camera-Flashes/dp/B0040HYMI0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1349580719&sr=8-2&keywords=pop+up+flash+diffuser

theres another one for 20 that is better,same look but thicker plastics http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Fong-Puffer-Flash-Diffuser/dp/B0011000R6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349580859&sr=8-1&keywords=pop+up+flash+diffuser they break like water but as dumb as they look they make a world of difference just something to think about I wouldn't want him to have everything be really light cuz its like using a magnifying glass ontop of the lens glass,

or for free you can take thick styro-foam plates and cut a circle out of the center that is just big enough to fit around the lens front and then place the filter on,works about the same but gives a lighter/softer diffusion,gets in the way though as is around the lens and flimsy,hope it works out for him,i just got rid of one of those smaller portrait lenses so I can't test it out for you and you can always stick the filter on a macro lens if you go that route as well,so it gets its use

 

[Paradoxica]

Thanks again, I just ordered the Raynox 150 (a reviewer said it worked great with my Dad's exact lens too!) and the diffuser in your link. My Dad is going to be so stoked, this will open up a whole new dimension for him.