Advice re Macro lens?

[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!

[nirofo]

[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.

[ruchai]

[quote=nirofo]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Leif]

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

[ruchai]

Originally Posted by Leif

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.

[nirofo]

[quote=ruchai]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[ruchai]

[quote=nirofo]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by ruchai

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.

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

[jseaman]

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.

[jseaman]

Originally Posted by Leif

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.

Leif

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.