Good macro

Keep reaching. I did not use sharping. With that comment, your a waste of time to talk to.

Come on Jerry. In the PK shot the top right is sharper than the bottom left. That tells me that the setup wasn't square or the f-stop was too large or both!

Also the exposure time for the PK shot was 1/50 sec while it was 1/8 second for the close-up lens shot. That tells me that the close-up lens shot was stopped down far more

.

Jerry.... It's "YOU'RE a waste of time to talk to." But why should I point out yet another error to you? ;) (it's a joke,

Jerry. Relax.)

 

Richard.... As Jerry said a few posts up. "Thank you, Richard."

Here's one with the diopter at 1/5 sec<div></div>

OK - lets work it out.

 

Assume illumination level same for both.

 

Lets guess that the magnification with the tube was 0.75. Therefore the extra exposure needed was (1+0.75)^2 = 3.1 or 1.6 stops.

 

Extra stops because of the shutter speed difference = log base 2( 50/8) = 2.6 stops.

 

Therefore PK shot has the lens wider by 2.6+1.6 = 4.2 stops.

Here's a Photo with taken with a coolpix.

 

Thank you, Joe, I've only had 28 errors pointed out to me today. Your value can not be measured in the community.<div></div>

Very late here now - goodnight.

My mathematical for macros is more like this. I pick up a Coolpix, point it and "CLICK." Itﾒs far superior results.

Ryan, there are lots of great macro lenses out there, it seems that many different manufacturers have figured out how to make them well. It's almost a slam dunk whether you go with AIS lenses or Nikon AF micro or 3rd party macros. Personally, the ones I've used and would buy again include Nikkor 105mm f/4 AIS, Nikon AF 200mm f/4 micro, and Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. Now that I've broken out the old F5 again I wish I had kept the 60mm f/2.8 AF-S micro as a short macro and normal lens. Had I a limitless budget I'd try the Zeiss 100mm f/2 ZF. Right now my current macros include 105mm f/4 AIS micro and 300mm f/4 AF-S (1:3.7 mag., not too shabby) with PN-11 extension tube or my Canon 500D lens (77mm thread). So, pick the focal length that suits your macro needs and then pick a macro based on budget. Before buying anything maybe check out John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" to help narrow down which focal length lens and accessories you'll need.

<br>

 

<br>

check out <b>http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/close-up_macro/macro_1.html</b>

<br>

 

<br>

check out <b>http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/</b>

<br>

 

<br>

check out <b>http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html</b>

<P>Sample of a butterfly shot using 105mm AF and D50. Click on the photo to go to the flickr site for the bigger sample.</P>

<a href=" title="Butterfly by Inspiration Point Studio, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2294/2526760490_87a3b64bf8.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Butterfly" /></a>

As an amateur about 90% of the above is over my head, but I can tell you I have had a blast with my Tamron 90mm

Macro. It has a solid body with a metal mount and has the sturdy feel of a well built lens. I enjoy shooting macro

and the lens frequently exits my bag so it has held up well. I just upgraded to the D300 from the D80 and am having

a ball with that but for me it is all about the glass. I am still not independently wealthy so the price break over the

Nikkor was well appreciated and I still have a great lens.<div></div>

Hi Ryan, I also have a D200 and use the Tamron SP DI 2.8 for macro work. It's a great lens and very sharp. I tend to use manual focus for macro.

I'm using the Tamron AF 90 mm f/2.8, and I have no complaints. When I bought it, I was doing a fair amount of macro work. Now, not so much. Bugs and flowers bore me to tears now. But I guess everyone has to go through that phase for a while. Some do it very well. However, I have no complaints about the lens itself. It has proven itself to be a capable performer and it hasn't broken despite my sometimes less than careful handling. I use it on film cameras, both auto and manual focus models, and it does yeoman duty these days as a portrait lens. Very nice. AF performance can be slow at times, but AF and macro don't always work nicely together anyway. If you can swing it, get it. You won't be sorry.

I picked up a 90mm.Tamron 2.5 adaptall mount for 50$ at a pawn shop ,great lens I'm now using it on my Nikon D40 with excellant results!!

Ryan, I use the 55/2.8 on a D200 and also the 200/4 Micro Ai. The 55 also performs well as a standard lens and the 200 is a useful, sharp telephoto. Both lenses, as already mentioned, give half life size and will give 1:1 with an extension tube. The 200/4 will also provide 1:1 with a TC-201 (as well as giving you a 400/8 telephoto). Also have had good results using a Nikon 6T close-up on my 85/1.8 and a 100-300. If going for the 55/2.8, watch out for oily/stuck aperture blades.

Jerry,

 

I'm really intrigued with the Nikon Coolpix 990 image above. According to DP Review, the Coolpix 990 will actually focus

down to 0.8 inches, (2.032 cm), in "macro focus mode". Amazing. I think I'll pick one of these up used, just for the fun of

it.

 

Thanks for turning me on to the cool, Coolpix 990.

Ditto the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor, a best buy. Mine is an older version, originally pre-AI, but AI'd by the previous owner when I bought it years ago with the M2 extension tube (which I seldom use). Very sharp and works as well on the D2H as on my film Nikons.

 

Sharp even wide open, mostly improving in contrast and color saturation when stopped down slightly. Diffraction is a minor problem when stopped down completely, so it's useful when maximum DOF is needed. However, when stopped down this is a tendency toward a "starburst" effect with specular highlights.

Joe and Jerry can we please try not to turn photo.net into a dpreview type forum insult/rant fest?

Robert ~

 

You might want to check out the 995 before you purchase a 990.

The problem I see with the various stamp photos is that the stamp was not flat. I prefer to shot stamps under glass so they are completely flat. Even an excellent macro lens used at f/8 will show what looks like distortion if the stamp is not flat. Stamps which have been used may have paper still glued to the back. This makes keeping them flat even more important. Any 55 or 60 Micro Nikkor (full frame) will give very sharp results for stamp photography if used correctly but at or near 1:1 your working dostance will make lighting the subject difficult. A lens in the 90-105 range will solve this problem. When I did more stamp photography I liked to use a 100/4 Bellows Rokkor-X or an 80/5.6 EL Nikkor.

Make that shoot and distance.

one more vote for the 55mm as a GREAT buy for micro work.

 

However, for stamp photography (which isn't what the original poster asked about, I don't think) wouldn't a better solution be

a really great flatbed scanner?<div></div>

Ryan, I have the D200 and do some underwater shooting. Took the powerful Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro etc. down and found that it was difficult to keep the critters centered. Little buggers tend to get very excited when a giant invades their territory, and that makes them animated. I think I would have done better with a 60mm: smaller images but at least within the frame. Consider how animated the subjects are going to be. Flowers tend to be very cooperative when not agitated by the wind:)

Ryan: The 55/3.5 and 105/2.8 are generally regarded as the two best manual focus Nikon macros. I have both, but use the 105/2.8 more because of its greater working distance for a given level of magnification. They both magnify to 1:2 without extension tubes, and 1:1 with. Whatever lens you get it will be important to learn it's depth of field and good focus technique. Regards, Brian.