Macro lens suggestions

[jmz82]

I've been looking at different lenses so I realize a true macro lens is 1:1 or better, also I would plan on shooting a large variety of things and realize the more mm the further you can be to get that 1:1 but the more you pay too. Since I don't do this for a living I would lean towards going with a 100mm or less even if it means I miss some shots of insects.

My biggest problem now is I look and there are so many lenses, I did a quick search on amazon for Macro lenses under the lens section and you get a ton that come up, half of which I question are even really macro. So dig I then dig through the pile of whats listed (especially since the criteria on the left doesn't give me much choosing) and can't help but think I'm not picking the best option. Does anyone have any suggestions for a decent budget macro lens?

[bob_r]

Which camera are you using?

[Diff]

Since there was no previous reply...

I have the same question. Using a Nikon D300. I've tried extension tubes with a 28-200 zoom, but I simply don't see/get the sharpeness. With the limited light that is associated with extension tubes, focusing is very difficult, even with Live View. Do I consider a Nikon 105mm, or ?? How do the off brands stand against a Nikon macro lens?

Much thanks!!

[bob_r]

I use the previous model Sigma 150mm f/2.8. The new model has OS and I'm sure that would be useful for shooting things other than macro, but don't know how effective it is for macro shots.
My lens is very sharp for macro and for non-macro shots and the AF is pretty fast when using the distance limiter. Here are some sample shots with the older version and the new model will probably be even better.

Canon 30D - 1/3200s f/4.0 at 210.0mm iso400 (I used a 1.4x teleconverter for this shot too.)



Canon 7D - 1/1600s f/5.6 at 150.0mm iso200



Sigma has a lot of lens they designate as "macro", but most are not 1:1 macro lenses. The 150 is.

[Southern Wolf]

If you're wanting to stay around the 100mm range... I love my Sigma 105mm macro