Macro Lense for my D40

Gawiedj · 27-11-2009

I've been looking to upgrade to a proper Macro lense for my D40, yes I know it's old and entry level...it will be upgraded next.

I really want the Nikon 105mm VR but I dont want to spend THAT much.
I've looked at the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro and from what I've read it seems to be a really good lense at almost half the price of the Nikon.
Do you guys think it's worth spending the extra 4k on the Nikon Lense?

sean_koekemoer · 27-11-2009

SLR/DSLR Lenses - OutdoorPhoto

Gawiedj · 27-11-2009

Thanks Sean.
I am still not sure if it's worth the extra $$$ for the Nikon lense.

**jacquesb** · 27-11-2009

Nah Gawie - I really don't think that it is worth the extra 4k. It would only really be worth it IF you actually MADE money with the lense.... then only I would say - yes. Go ahead. Get the real thing.....

Gawiedj · 27-11-2009

Jacques, I have that exact same problem with a Camera upgrade. I'd really love to get a D90, but its just too expensive for a gift "from me; to me" unless I tackle this photography thing as a business and take pics for $$$.

**jacquesb** · 27-11-2009

Jip - exactly Gawie......

noproblem · 27-11-2009

you can get lens rings or spacers that will increase the depth of field for about R700 without getting a macro lens at stupid money

Linxie · 07-12-2009

Hope you don't mind the noob chirping in

I'd rather go for the sigma lens. But also keep in mind that the D40 has no motor, so the lens will have to have a built in motor. Otherwise you'll have to focus manually. Not really a train smash, but it can make focusing difficult. Back to the sigma lens... those lenses are great value for money. They may not be top of the range, but they're definitely good enough for what you wanna do.

Dunno if you've tried using ext tubes yet. They're extremely cheap (think I got mine for R150.00 from Cameraworld in Jozi, or some such place) but the only problem is that you have absolutely no control over your aperture. You'd need to work in brightly lit areas. So yeah, although it's cheaper, it's tedious working with ext tubes.

**Rory** · 07-12-2009

The sigma 105mm macro is pretty much regarded as being on par with the canon 100mm macro (which a lot of people say should be an "L" lens). Sigma does have some cheap lenses but generally the ones that cost the same as canon/nikon are equivalent to the canon/nikon. Basically what I'm saying is that in no way is the optical quality of the sigma inferior to the nikon 105mm micro. The main advantage the nikon has is VR. For "real" macro you should be using a tripod anyway so this means nothing. It won't help much for fish pics either if you are panning to "chase" the fish.

I'm fairly sure the sigma 105mm macro does have a built in focussing motor.