If you can only buy one MACRO lens, what focal length?

After some years of diving with a Canon A70 and then an Olympus SP-350, I realized I wanted the flexibility and performance of an SLR for UW and on land, so I bought a Nikon D200 with the kit 18-200 VR lens. I'm ready to select a prime macro lens for above and below water. For UW I expect to seek subjects such as nudibranchs, corals, blennies, gobies, etc. For above, for bugs, flowers, and other critters I can see advantages to going long, from 105 to as much as 180mm, but I wonder if such a narrow angle would be problematic UW?

If you only get to buy one, do you buy a 105, or ???

FWIW, with the zoom I find myself using the 135 to 200 range more than I expected, even when photographing up close to subjects, so I have a pretty good idea that on land I'd prefer 150 or 180. I mention that in case some would think I'm not aware of the 1.5x effect of the D200.

I would suggest the 60mm. Much more flexible - if you only can have one macro lens. PLus it is much easier to get used to using than the 105mm.

Alex

I would suggest the 60mm. Much more flexible - if you only can have one macro lens. PLus it is much easier to get used to using than the 105mm.

In fact I think I was somewhat fooled for a long time thinking 105MM was a great focal length for underwater macro. I think the 90mm the 60 gives, the 157mm the 105 gives and then wet and dry diopters on both is about all the coverage, and very usable coverage, one needs if micro-macro isn't their goal.

Or would that be macro-micro, or maybe macro-macro or maybe............................

i will go the other way and suggest the 105 if you were to only have one macro. To get shots of blennies and gobies etc is very difficult to fill the frame well with the 60mm as you need to be too close.

The 105mm is a better choice for shy critters.

i will go the other way and suggest the 105 if you were to only have one macro. To get shots of blennies and gobies etc is very difficult to fill the frame well with the 60mm as you need to be too close. The 105mm is a better choice for shy critters.

But give some thought to the idea of being stuck with 157.5mm as your shortest lens and then consider if you instead used the 60 and added diopters, wet or dry, you could both lose 60mm and gain another 50mm or so and endup having focal lengths from 90mm to 160mm, or so, with only one lens and a dipoter. You'd get the critters and have a pretty good fish lens as well (Alex's comment about versitilty).

Wow, you guys are GREAT! THANKS! Before I read your responses, on my way home from work I stopped by the local camera store and looked briefly at a Tamron 90mm ($600) and the Nikon VR 105 ($900). I'm not looking forward to spending that kind of money, but wanted to get SOME sense of the focal lengths...

I'm definitely cooling on thinking I want longer than 105 for land -- 105 looked like plenty of "pull", and it focuses quickly and close. And a very nice ~100mm would probably replace my 18-200 all the time for anything like a real portrait. So at least I'm discarding the idea of a 150 or 180, and 105 is at the long end of my desire spectrum.

I need to read up on diopters, I'm startiung from near-zero there.

Thanks again for the recommendations, I'm thinking hard about this...

Rick aka tubino

I'll suggest a compromised option:

Get the 60mm and teleconverter, then you have 60 on F2.8 and 120mm on F5.6.

The 60 plus the X2 act very similar to the 105 with the AF and can create very good results.

I've got all three, the 60mm, 105mm (both versions) and the 200mm. The only one I ever use for macro is the 105mm. I even add diopters. I actually use the 60mm more for portraits and products than macro, although it is my preferred lens for night dives where the subjects are so macro.

You have to get so close with the 60mm. The nudibranchs get scared and race away before I can fire a shot off.

You have to get so close with the 60mm. The nudibranchs get scared and race away before I can fire a shot off.

The perfect opportunity for u/w panning B)

Well, since I am so bad at deciding I always want to confuse others, too, so here goes:

You can probably get used 105 (I got a mint one for $450 several years ago) + a used or new 60 for less than a new 105 VR, and I haven't seen many claims that the new lens is *much* better than the old one (nano/VR/AF-S notwithsanding). If your chosen housing allows use of extension rings, you'd then get both for about the cost of just the 105 VR.

All the best,

Chris

You can probably get used 105 (I got a mint one for $450 several years ago) + a used or new 60 for less than a new 105 VR, and I haven't seen many claims that the new lens is *much* better than the old one (nano/VR/AF-S notwithsanding). If your chosen housing allows use of extension rings, you'd then get both for about the cost of just the 105 VR.

Great discussion, here, and I like this cost-benefit twist! I'm open to second hand, and have seen some interesting possibilties on ebay, even...

As of late last night I was kinda thinking now that a good compromise (between 60 and 105, and in price too) would be the Tamron 90mm. At least I'm pretty darned sure I'd love that lens for above water!

Now, I come to this with a probably unfounded bias against teleconverters etc., but if great pictures are being taken with them, I can open my mind.

Of MORE concern to me with the Tamron is that it comes so far out when focusing close. I think I read there is a 2" variation in actual lens length from infinity to closest focus. I wonder if that's an expensive dome now for the Ikelite I'd wind up with for my D200? Wouldn't THAT be a bad joke, if I save a couple hundred on the lens, then spend more to put it in a housing for some special dome...

probably not: you will want a flat port for that and ikelite ports are not that expensive.. The longer ports are a maximum of 175 euro's (with all taxes probalby the same), without focus 125.

dont worry too much about vignetting in a flat I used a flat port for a 50mm lens which had quite a bit extension with no problems. The field of view is quite narrow, and you will use it mostly quite up close, when the lens is at the longest end..

I have heard good things about the tamron lens, good optics, although the buid quality is a bit flimsier then some brand lenses (but then, its not a hammer is it?)

i have seen good results with that 90 in an Ike. Was a pretty standard Ike flat port.

i have seen good results with that 90 in an Ike. Was a pretty standard Ike flat port.

Well that, and the reviews I've been reading, about cinches it. I expect 95% of the use of this lens will be non-UW, but it looks like I could have a lot of fun with the Tamron 90 above and below. And if I stumble into a great deal on a 60mm down the road, I could always get teleconverters for still more options. But the 90mm would be a good way to start learning these long months before I go diving again. Thanks for all the help - I hope to be posting photos here one of these days!

On a sort of related topic, I read the threads in this forum about use of 18-70 zooms UW. Interesting! I currently own the Nikon 18-200 VR, and it's funny to think about that in a housing... At 200mm it focuses reasonably close (but definitely NOT 1:1), so I can imagine using it for subjects large and small -- but can one purchase off-the-shelf gear solutions for zooming that one in a housing?

I bought the Tamron 90 AF (not the newer DI version), very clean and nice, for $150. Just got it today, and the first shots are VERY promising. Also on the way is a Tamron Pro 2x teleconverter. Maybe eventually I'll get a 60, but for now the 90 seems it will work great for what I'm after. Thanks for the help here!

Hi I would like to ad my 2ct to the discussion. I'm a Canon shooter but there we have 50mm and 100mm Macro Lenses, so the situation is similar. I will call them short and long in the rest of the post.

For underwater use the short lens is my 1st choice for flexibility. I use it when i don't know what to expect at a dive spot or there is macro stuff and also the chance for bigger stuff. You can make good macro shots withz it but you have to get very close. It is the ideal lens for Fish portraits and you have at least a chance with big fish. I even did some decent Manta pics with it. It is also my standard lens for night dives.

The long lens is a pure macro lens. It isexcellent at that but not really useable fore anything else. It is also more difficult to use UW even the slightes current makes it difficult to hold it still. You need some pratice to use it correctly. But never the less if your goal is macro only this is an excellent choice.

If I would have to decide which lense to take and I could take only one it would be the short one but manly because of the flexibility I have with it. If you have a other lens that serves this purpose and you are looking for pure macro the long lens is the way to go. I actualy bought the short first and the long half an year later.

Simon

Hi,

I thought it might be useful to add some images i shot with the 60mm and the 105mm. I have included shots that were easy to take of both a macro subject and a larger subject.

First, here is the 60mm:

and then the 105mm:

If I would have to decide which lense to take and I could take only one it would be the short one but manly because of the flexibility I have with it. If you have a other lens that serves this purpose and you are looking for pure macro the long lens is the way to go.

The image quality with the Tamron 90mm is so good compared to the zoom I've been using that I will never regret buying it. If I add a shorter lens later (60mm), I'll just be better educated about choices by then... but I'll also be more experienced using the 90.

Very impressive photos, Scuba_SI! When I was asking about macro, I really had in mind capabilities for TINY, as in barnacles, i.e. 1:1 magnification. But I will undoubtedly end up with a wide angle, in time...

I have no idea what I'll take diving, most of the time, but the 90 just might win out... maybe I'll miss some turtle or shark shots, but I should be assured of getting SOME decent shots every dive if I'm looking for small stuff...

I would normally agree that the 60mm is the best macro lens choice. Its a terrific fast focusing lens that is also razor sharp. For $350 its a bargain as well. This is the perfect lens for medium sized reef fish, which is what people like me love to shoot. Its my favorite lens.

But in your case, if you want to shoot the really small stuff, esp. the stuff that spooks easily, like blennys etc. then I would go with the 105mm. The 105mm is a pretty long lens on digital. But you will need it if you want to fill the frame with a tiny critter. Try to shoot normal sized fish and you will mainly get tight head shots or eyes, so if you mainly want barracuda or angel fish you want the 60mm, but if you really want subjects close to 1:1 (24mm size) then you want the 105mm. The 60mm is capable of the same magnification and can be done with static subjects like flowers but if it is anything that spooks easily then you need the extra working distance that the 105mm affords.

If cost is an issue consider the older Nikon 105mm or even a used one. The VR and AF-S is nice to have but in reality for a macro lens these don't make much difference. Read Alex Mustard's excellent review of the 105mm VR and you will see that the difference is marginal. I'd be willing to part with mine in mint condition along with a custom Ikelite port for the 105mm + 4T diopter. Send me a PM.

I don't recommend going longer. While some fantastic shooters on this board have success with the Sigma 150mm and Nikon 200mm, on digital these are too cumbersome, difficult to focus and stabilize and very limited in the choice of subjects. If you get the 105mm and find that your subjects demand such long optics you will loose little in quality, functionality and cost by adding a TC to gain a 150-200mm equivalent lens.

If cost is an issue consider the older Nikon 105mm or even a used one. The VR and AF-S is nice to have but in reality for a macro lens these don't make much difference. Read Alex Mustard's excellent review of the 105mm VR and you will see that the difference is marginal. I'd be willing to part with mine in mint condition along with a custom Ikelite port for the 105mm + 4T diopter. Send me a PM.

I'm okay with used, and decided on a Tamron 90mm SP AF, which is quite sharp and can focus to 1:1. I also sprung for the 2X TC (arriving tomorrow), so equiv 180mm is an option.

Going another way, today I picked up an old but clean Nikkor-S 50mm 1.4. If I stack it reversed on the Tamron, I get 1.8 magnification, and on 200mm zoom I get 4:1 magnification! Hah. Put the 2x TC in there, and I'm up to 3.6x with the Tamron, and fully whacked-out 8:1 with 200mm (!), but not much light there... If I want more than that, I should look into the 3x device by reefnet: http://reefnet.ca/products/subsee/.

But seriously, in the next couple of months I'll learn a thing or two about using these fine devices in various combinations with a pair of SB-600 flashes. I'm guessing the Tamron 90 will do pretty much everything I want in UW macro, for a while anyway.