Macro lens

[divingne1]

I have a Nikon D70 digital SLR with an AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm lens, an AF Nikkor 70-300mm telephoto-zoom lens, and a Nikon Speedlight SB-600.

My husband and I were looking at what kind of macro lens I would need. To be honest, I will probably only use the macro lens to take pictures of my frogs or fish. Is the following lens going overboard when I am just going to use it for frogs and fish? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 ... IF_DX.html

[rozdaboff]

I am not sure if that is the lens that you wanted to link to - but that is a 12-24mm wide angle lens that is great for taking pictures of landscapes - but not ideal for macros of fish or frogs.

For Nikon macros - you have a couple of good options. First thing you want to consider is the working distance (how much space between you and the subject). There are a couple of common ranges available:
50-60mm - good for inanimate objects, can be harder for live subjects as you need to be close - and they may get spooked
90-105mm - this is my go to distance. It offers you the benefits of a little more working distance - but not too much (i.e. a very heavy lens)
150-180mm - these lenses can be fun - and great for really flighty subjects, but the lenses are bulky and heavy - and take practice to use without a tripod/monopod or stabilization.

I have a Sigma 180mm that I enjoy - but my Nikkor 105mm gets more use.

As for specific lenses - you have options:

I like the Nikkor 105mm. You can save some money and get the older non-VR lens. I can't say enough good things about this lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105af.htm

I don't own them - but I have heard really good things about the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm DG macro.

If you want the shorter focal length - then you are still in good shape with either Nikon or Sigma (haven't read much about the other lenses).

Like I mentioned - I own the 180mm Sigma - and I really like the quality and build of the lens - and I have heard similar things about the others.

For really good lens reviews - check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[divingne1]

So I think I am getting the whole Macro thing confused. I have a 18-70mm lens and a 70-300mm lens. I think the numbers are throwing me. What makes a lens a macro? I thought I didn't need a lens that does 18-55mm if I have one that does 18-70mm. I think I should start by understanding what a macro lens is in the first place.

[rozdaboff]

It is not the focal length that defines a macro - but instead the capability of the lens to produce images on the sensor the same size that they are in real life. This definition has become slightly less accurate with digital cameras, and the best working definition that I have heard is that a macro shot is any picture that shows the same or more detail than can be appreciated than by viewing the object in real life.

Wikipedia does a much better job of explaining it than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography

[divingne1]

The link you provided isn't a place to purchase that lens from right? Is that a macro lens? I found it at B&H for around $740

[rozdaboff]

No - the link for the Nikon lens was to a review by Ken Rockwell. The lens you saw for ~$740 was probably the newer VR version of that lens. I haven't used it - so I can't comment on the value of the VR. [Here is a review of the lens by Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105vr.htm) - and his main complaint is the autofocus - but autofocus is near useless for macro work anyway.] But - you can find the older, non-VR version for about half that price.

Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Macro

This lens isn't produced new any more - so you need to look for it on places that have old stock or sell used lenses.

[tkromer]

Not having any experience with the Nikon equipment I can't help on specifics, but I would definitely agree on the 90-110mm as being the "sweet spot" for shooting macro.

Secondly, check the thread on equipment rentals, you may be able to "test drive" the lenses and see what you like.