Advice re Macro lens?
 

Hi all need some advice. I have a Nikon D70 and want to buy a macro lesns. Have some funds about £200-250 and had been looking at the Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro.

Having looked at lenses in general there is a liitle confusion as to what magnification there is. I keep seeing comments re 1:1 ratio and 1:2 or 1:39. I assume the 1:1 is the best as this will be lifesize?

However Iwas wanting to get in close and see more details i.e more magnification!

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Nogbad

Nogbad

You may find this thread I started some time ago useful.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...hread.php?t=94

Thanks Ken, it was very helpful and answered my questions. I will start trawling the web for the best prices.

Cheers

Nogbad

Hi NOGBAD,
If you want big magnification get a microscope and camera adaptor.
If that's too big ,get a bellows as suggested in the other thread.
If you want to take normal things like bugs etc ,then indeed you will need a macro type lens.The shorter the focal lenght of the lens the closer you have to get to your subject.For example at it's NEAREST focus distance, the 60/2.8 NIKKOR is about 75mm from the front edge of the lens to the subject.The Sigma 105/2.8 is about 125mm from the front edge of the lens to the subject.
The reason I say this is because the closer you have get to your subject the more you are likely to frighten your "bug", and block out the light with your body/camera.
At the "shorter " end of the focal lengths, you can consider the 50mm Sigma, 60mm Nikkor,90mm Tamron, 105mm Nikkor and Sigma.If you can get a shop/store before you buy, try some and you will see what I mean.
Some of these lenses, new (may be outside of your budget) but can be found S/H within the price you have set as your target.
If you already knew all this then sorry, for wasting your time.
regards Subzero.

Thanks Subzero, no I did'nt know that and it is useful. I have decided on the
Nikon 60mm macro as I want to take pictures of flowers and creepy crawlies which wont be too skittish. I am interested in moths and butterflies as well which I know I can get fairly close to.

Hopefully I can pick it up tomorrow and get to grips with it with some everyday things. The reason I went for the Nikon is, after searching on the web for reviews of all the lenses suggested there was'nt much between them. I got the impression the Nikon is optically better and I wish to make enlargements and put them in competitions at my photographic club and feel the image quality may be that little bit better.

Thanks to all for their comments, suggestions and advice. It has been really helpful.

Cheers

Nogbad

Get the MacroNikkor 60mm. I got one recently and am very happy with it. Just the right focal lenght and weight. Superb picture quality. I use it nearly every night taking insect pictures of our garden. See here, the fly is about the size of a house fly. http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat/500/page/1

Nogbad

This site is very useful for gauging the quality of lens

http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/querylens.jsp

It is one list that contains most lens.

It only takes a few seconds to gauge if a lens is poor, average or good quality.
Then you know what you are getting instead of being surprised pleasantly or not.

It's not Rocket Science

You will see the Nikkor 60mm scores much higher than the Sigma 50mm

The MicroNikkor 60mm is an old lens. I does not have Nikkor new auto-focus-S. But it surprised me for sharpness. My only other macro lens is an 40 plus years old PentaxMacro 50mm. The auto-focus of the Nikkor 60mm really help.
I gave up comparing lenses from charts for a long long time. I am too old and prefer to spend my time photographing. Reviews from many experts in the net are more easy. I did not regret when I bought two Nikkors last year, the 80-400VR and the micro-nikkor 60mm. I do not think I shall need any other lens in a foreseeable future. The 80-400 for birds in the morning and evening and the micro-nikkor 60mm for insects at night.

I've got the 60mm f2.8 too and I would recommend it. You can use it for other things too.

I would recommend the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro, it's a proven, versatile performer which is universally well esteemed. I would say it is the equal if not better than the Nikon or Canon macro lenses, (certainly a lot cheeper). I had the Nikkor 105mm Macro which I couldn't get on with, so I traded it in for a Tamron 90, I've never looked back, great lens, does all I wan't. The bonus is it becomes a 135mm Macro on a Nikon D70.

nirofo.

100mm macro lenses used to be very popular in the film era. With digital it become 150mm which is too long (you will be too far from the subject). I found 60mm macro (90mm equivalent) to be just right for insects.

If you see old articles recomended 100mm macro lenses what the authour meant is equal to 65mm lenses with dslr!

[quote=ruchai]100mm macro lenses used to be very popular in the film era. With digital it become 150mm which is too long (you will be too far from the subject). I found 60mm macro (90mm equivalent) to be just right for insects.

If you see old articles recomended 100mm macro lenses what the authour meant is equal to 65mm lenses with dslr![/QUOTE]

Hi ruchai

I would have thought being further back from an insect would be preferable to being on top of it, less chance of disturbing it if you're further away. I tried the shorter macro's for some time, years ago, I couldn't get on with them, always blocking my own light, or disturbing the butterflies etc.

It's only recently that the longer focal length macro lenses have become readily available at the prices mere mortals can afford, many of the recent spate of good close-up photo's in magazines such as "Outdoor Photographer" have been taken using 180mm macro lenses on DSLR's, making them the equivalent of 270mm on 35mm film.

nirofo.

[quote=nirofo]Hi nirofo

There is optimum distance from the subject and not the more further back the better. The 60mm lens when use with a digital camera is a 90mm lens. 90mm is a telephoto. In the old days with Leica 35mm cameras 90mm is considered medium telephoto. During the last days of film slr 100mm macro lenses are very popular. When these people switched to dslr they forgot to divide the focal length of their macro lenses with 1.5!

This picture like many other was taken with my NikonMicro 60mm. I would not pick other lenses even if I had them there.
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat/500/page/1

For dragonflies you need at least 200mm on FF so about 150mm on APS in my experience. I have had success with a 105mm lens on FF with dragonflies, but it is hard work. 200mm on APS is so much easier.

The Nikon 60mm micro lens is quite something. I compared it to my modest but well reviewed 24-85 AFS zoom at 60mm and F11, subject distance about 2m, and the micro lens gave noticeably higher contrast and sharpness. When stopped down, zooms often match primes. It is my favourite lens as the optics are so good.

Leif

You do not need a macro lens for dragonflies. Macro lens is originally for life size or bigger than life pictures. Many lenses now are called macro lenses but could not take life size pictures, you have to blow them up in the computer, nothing to do with the lens. I usually use my Nikkor80-400VR for dragonflies and butterflies. See my dragonfly picture here. http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...cat/fav/page/2

Real macro lenses are expensive because they are designed for close-up works. They can not sell them in big volume like conventional lenses. You will have to pay for quality. There are no such thing as cheap good macro lens.

It's the ccd and the lens that produce sharp sparkling pictures. No other things will. So buy the camera that has the best ccd, luckily at present it's the D50 which is the lowest priced dslr from Canon or Nikon. Buy the best lenses. With modern high quality zoom lens you do not need shelffull of lenses.

[quote=ruchai]Hi ruchai

Why do you say there is optimum distance from the subject and not the more further back the better, magnification is a combination of the focal distance from the subject to the lens and the focal length of the lens, so unless you have a specific reason to get physically very close to the subject a longer focal length macro lens has the advantage of obtaining the macro image size at a greater distance, therefore less stress for the subject. As I pointed out, a 90mm 1/1 macro becomes a 135mm 1/1 macro on a Nikon DSLR, (probably similar on Canon, not sure.) For insect macro work I would think being able to shoot at 1/1 on a 135mm lens is very useful and desirable.

nirofo.

[quote=nirofo]Hi mirofo
Long focal length lens magnify camera shaking more than short focal length lens. Many time hand holding is prefer. You can move the camera to different angles etc. So there must be the best focal length for each situation. You know 1000mm is too long 12mm is too short. That why I said there is an optimum focal length for macro lens. From my experience I think around 100mm equivalent (65mm film camera lens when use with dslr) is the right focal length. Pro photographer had been using 100mm macro lens for film cameras for decades. When they switched to dslr they may not want to buy a new lens and prefer to sacrifice as the different is not all that much.

Macro is not necessarily for life size or bigger. My Nikon 200mm F4 micro only goes to 1:2 i.e. half life size. Manufacturers seem to use macro to mean anything between 1:4 and 1:1.

You are correct that a macro lens is not essential for close ups, as you can add extension tubes or a decent diopter lens and some zoom lenses often have a macro mode. But a macro lens will usually if not always give better quality imaging. Whether that difference matters to you is another issue. (And more importantly whether or not you are prepared to pay for the difference.) In my experience dragonflies need 1:4 for big uns and 1:2 or smaller for little uns.

IMO the advantage of longer focal length is greater working distance. I see you have a nice Rat Snake picture. Mmmm. I might prefer working distance for snakes! (I'm sure you will tell me that Rat Snakes are big softies.)

I never use macro lenses hand held, though hand held in flight shots are now possible thanks to the wonders of modern cameras.

Leif

Well ... we've strayed quite a bit from the original topic of recommending macro lenses for Nikons into an area I feel competent to comment on: Macro lenses in general.

A few things have been said that are in error, misleading or that I simply don't agree with.

Not all digital SLRs have that focal length multiplication factor. Canon makes a couple of full frame digital SLR bodies - Nikon does not.

The definition of macro is life-size or larger. You cannot take a macro photo of an entire dragonfly - they are larger than the sensor of a camera! You can use a macro lens to take the photo, but it will not be at 1:1 magnification.

100mm macro lenses on a Nikon 1.5x or Canon 1.6x crop sensor is not too long! At times I use a 2x teleconverter with my 100mm macro lens on a 1.6x crop factor body to get farther away from a subject. That's 320mm! This link leads to a photo taken with a 3x teleconverter on a 100mm macro lens used on a 1.6x Canon body - 480mm! http://www.jbs-blog.com/?p=72

Canon's macro lens offerings are 50, 60, 100 and 180mm - Nikon's are 60, 105 and 200mm. They seem to think that long is quite usable.

Macro without a tripod?!!!!!! Only for a record shot of some unknown insect maybe. I always have my tripod and remote shutter release when the macro lens is mounted.

Auto focus when shooting macro?!!!! Once again - not me! The depth of field of the focus is so razor thin most of the time that manual focus is the only way to get it exactly where you want it.

Your post beat mine by about 60 seconds!

Anyway ... check again on your 200mm lens! The literature says: Focuses from infinity to 19.4 inches (1:1 reproduction ratio). Sounds like life size to me!

But your comment on manufacturers using the term macro to oft times mean smaller than life size, you are very correct.

Thanks to all who gave advice. I am now the proud owner of the Nikon 60mm Micro.

Nogbad

Well done Nogbad,
a very good choice and a fine piece of glass. I am sure you will not be disappointed with it,
So, it's only 21.25hrs, out you go into your garden and get us some "Glowworm" images!!!
regards Subzero.

They are manufacturers who try to confuse buyer about macro lens. In the good old days macro mean taking closeup photos of actual size or bigger. You need lens designed for sharp pictures at close range.

Here is my picture of dragonfly using MicroNikkor60mm. If you do not use special macro lens it will usually not possible to get sharp pictures at close range. If your lens focal length is too long you will not get enough depth of field.

As for auto-focus for macro, I used to have a 50mm Pentax macro lens with manual focus. Using this MicroNikkor with auto focus is very convenient indeed. I shall never go back to macro lenses without auto focus again.

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/...hp/photo/80393

Jim: You looked at the AF version. I have the MF version which only goes to 1:2. So in other words Nikon use micro (their term) for 1:2. I think the 70-180 micro zoom also only goes to about 1:1.3.

Leif