Macro Lens

<p>Last year I gave my son and daughter-in-law a D3300 with a kit lens, and I also gave them my 70-300. My daughter-in-law is a botanist and has been saying that she wants to be able to take pictures of mosses and lichens (not everyone's target subject). I am willing to spend $276 for the 40mm macro lens but I am concerned about the focus distance, even though her subjects do not move. Would this lens be useful to her, or would she do just as well with the 18-50mm? I don't want to spend more than $300. Thanks,<br>

Jean</p>

<p>I reviewed that 40mm DX macro lens for photo.net a few years ago: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/40mm-f2.8-af-s-dx-micro/review/<br /> And this folder contains a number of images captured with that lens: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1014835</p>

<p>It is best to check with your daughter in law, the botanist, what focal length is best for her work. My guess is that 40mm is too short. Most likely she is better off with a Nikon 60mm/f2.8 AF-S macro or perhaps some third-party 90mm macro. Nikon also has a 85mm/f3.5 DX AF-S VR macro lens. A longer macro will give her more working distance from the subject, e.g., it won't be as easy to cast your own shadow on the subject.</p>

<p>Please keep in mind that if she wants auto focus, the lens must be AF-S (with an AF motor built into the lens) to have AF on the D3300.</p>

<p>BTW, not sure you would like to spend this much, but currently Nikon has a package deal including that 85mm DX macro and the 35mm/f1.8 DX: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/macro--portrait-2-lens-kit.html<br /> That same kit is also available at the major mail-order stores.</p>

The photographs in the field guide "Mosses, Liverworts and Hornworts" by Pope, which I am currently reading were shot

with a Nikkor 100 f/2.8 micro lens. The author's DSLR was not specified as to whether full frame or otherwise which

makes a difference.

 

Nevertheless, I would also agree that both 40mm and 60mm are too short.

 

Keep in mind that lighting is also very important particularly if one is trying to accurately record something like a moss

close-up. The author of the above guide used 2 strobes; a ringilght would also suffice. If she brings specimens home or to a lab, perhaps lighting could be controlled without off camera flash/ring lights.

 

This sentiment is also echoed by the authors of the magnificent tome, "Lichens of North America" which is not only

technically comprehensive but filled with superb photography. Might also be a great gift for a botanist interested in lichens

if she doesn't already have it.

 

Definitely, ask, if possible, to see what her actual needs are - shooting in the field vs a specimen on the kitchen table,

what magnification does she need etc.<div></div>

<p>I think your best choice for your budget is going to be a used Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. Your best choice overall would be a used Nikon 105mm VR, but the cheapest I see used ones selling for is $400 to $500, i.e. twice as much. The Tamron will do the job and is a great basic macro lens.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>See the link I mentioned earlier. You can buy two new Nikon AF-S DX lenses as a kit for just less than $500:</p>

<ul>

<li>85mm/f3.5 AF-S VR macro</li>

<li>35mm/f1.8 AF-S</li>

</ul>

<p>That deal is available at:</p>

<ul>

<li>Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/nk3518mpk.html</li>

<li>Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Portrait-NIKKOR-Auto-Focus-Cameras/dp/B016VOVJ9Y</li>

<li>B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1192712-REG/nikon_13490_macro_portrait_2.html</li>

</ul>

<p>And many other stores.</p>

<p>If you don't need the 35mm, you can always re-sell it.</p>

<p>60mm would be on the short side on FX, but it may work well on DX such as the D3300. However, only the photographer herself can determine that.</p>

<p>I use a 90 manual focus adaptall which has a helical focus down to 1-1. I rarely use my manual focus 55 with extension tube as I can't get enough light as distance is far too close. I prefer manual focus for macro work, ( also manual focus for my wide angle photography 28mm, 24, 20 and 17 relying on hyperfocal distance settings).</p>

<p>I've had a manual focus Tamron 90 f2.5 macro for many years and can attest to it being a very good lens for the job. With the Adaptall mount it can be used on almost any SLR/DSLR camera made since the 1960s. There are certainly more expensive ones with a variety of features, improved glass, etc., but she should be fine with the one mentioned or this version. Here's a link to the lens http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/52B.html . More expensive, but a stellar manual focus performer is the Kiron 105/2.8 in a Nikon mount, also known as the Lester Dine (it was used for dental work). I see several on Ebay right now in the $260-380 range. Much more expensive are the Nikon AF ones, but the image quality on all those mentioned here is about the same (I've owned Canon, Nikon, Kiron, Minolta and Tamron ones over the years so feel a little qualified to make a recommendation).</p>

If 1:1 will do (and I agree it's worth checking the

daughter in law doesn't want to go as far as bellows or

wouldn't do better with a cheap digital microscope), I

agree the Tamron 90mm options are very good. I have

the last pre-vc f/2.8 version (which has a little LoCA, but

is nice and sharp). The warning I'd give is that the front

element is heavily insert relative to the front of the lens -

you don't have as much working distance as the optics

could achieve. I've not compared with the alternatives

recently, though. Good luck! Fortunately there aren't

many bad macro lenses out there.

<p>For a low budget solution, she could try a set of extension tubes on the lenses she already owns. These will allow a closer focusing distance for her longer focal length lens, but without benefit of autofocus. Like others, I prefer manual focus for macro work, as the depth of field is so narrow and I cannot rely on autofocus to correctly pick the exact point desired. I like my Micro-Nikkor 55mm/2.8 AI with a Tamron SP AF 2x Tele-Converter. The following image is a 90 dpi crop at 1:1 with a Nikon D7100 and this combination, taken of a $20 bill. Sadly, this combination will not fully function on the D3300.</p><div></div>

<p>The following image was captured using the same 70-300mm lens as she owns, combined with a 36mm Kenko extension tube. It is not nearly as sharp, but will function on the D3300. The best solution will be a dedicated lens like the AF-S 105mm Micro-Nikkor, an expensive option.</p><div></div>

For lower plants, lichens and small fungi, I would recommend tamron 90mm or sigma 105mm. The 85 nikon would be pretty good too if no plans to go fx. 60mm might suffice for working distance on dx but I find with the slightly longer lenses it's easier to defocus distracting backgrounds. More dof isn't always a good thing for close up photography.

<p>As <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9150524">David Triplett</a>'s examples demonstrate, while you maybe able to get a regular lens to focus close, with extension tubes or close up filters, their quality at close range is nowhere in the same league as dedicated macro lenses designed for close focusing, even though he already degrades his macro lens with a 2x teleconverter.</p>

<p>My Nikon 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR can focus quite close also, but it generates somewhat fuzzy images at near-macro distance and is not even close in quality compared to my 105mm/f2.8 Macro Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>Jean, +1 for Kent Staubus and others re Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. You can do this for under your $300 limit if you are willing to shop for a used version on the net. Check with your Botanist, and good luck.</p>

I thought all the MF versions of Tamron 90mm

f/2.5 lens only focused to 1:2, so I'm surprised to

hear of an adaptall version that does lifesize.

<p>

However I'll also put in a recommendation for a

Tamron 90mm macro, but one of the f/2.8 AF

versions that will definitely focus to 1:1. To get AF on a D3300 it needs to be a model with built-in-motor. IME the f/2.8 version also has slightly better IQ at macro distances than the original f/2.5 optical formula.

<p>You all have convinced me that the Tamron is a good idea. I found this on Amazon, is this too good to be true?</p>

<p>Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP AF/MF 1:1 Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras$282.99 Eligible for free shipping with Amazon Prime.<br>

+ $0.00 estimated tax<br />Used - Like New<br />Unopened in the original package. BONUS 7 year Mack warranty included.<br />FULFILLMENT BY AMAZON <br />Free Two-Day Shipping: Get it Tuesday, December 6 ( order within 22hr 17min ) .<br />Shipping rates and return policy.<br />Emmy Photo<br />5 out of 5 stars 100% positive over the past 12 months. (2,892 total ratings)</p>

There may still be some "new" stock of the older

model 272EN for sale Jean. This doesn't have an AF

motor and won't autofocus with the D3300. The

newer 272Nii model will.

 

Most obvious difference is that the BIM version has

no aperture ring, so look for that if a picture of the

lens is shown.

 

Another reason for the cheap sale price may be that this is a returned or open box lens. Caveat emptor!

<p>So, yesterday's discussion, and Shun's comments particularly, reignited my desire to obtain the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105/2.8 VR. I happened to find a used model that I could afford (about 1/2 of new price), and I just picked it up. By way of comparison, here is a similar image to the two previously posted, shot with the new lens. Sorry, but I was unable to duplicate the lighting exactly. </p><div></div>

<p>The biggest problem with short focal length macro lenses is that the front element is so close to the subject at 1:1 that you are likely blocking your own light. Working distance is a critical factor when using macro lenses. I find anything shorter than 100mm is too difficult to use because I'm either interfering with the subject physically or casting a shadow with the lens.</p>

<p>she wants to be able to take pictures of mosses and lichens<br>

The biggest problem with short focal length macro lenses is that the front element is so close to the subject at 1:1<br>

MM A lot depends on the subject at hand, ... and on the Camera.<br>

A 60mm lens on a DX camera (especially when doing Macro) gives different results from the same lens on a FX camera, especially when doing Macro (1:2 - 1:1 ) ..<br>

I find a 60mm for the mentioned topic still quite useful on a DX camera ( like the Ops daughter's camera) .<br>

Also the effects of adding an extension tube , are different because of the crop factor which acts a bit different in close range photography...<br>

When I find the time to show the effect , maybe I can post an example of this, but that will be difficult to do today in my schedule..</p>

<p>I'm not sure how relevant <i>perspective</i> is in these cases (how close you actually want to get to the subject). Assuming the actual concern is just capturing detail, it's certainly the case that a longer lens is easier to use than a shorter one - although it might not matter as much if backlighting is an option, compared with most macro images.<br />

<br />

The talk of DX vs FX worries me a bit. DX is <i>always</i> like cropping the centre out of an FX frame in terms of image, and therefore can be considered to be the same as adding a 1.5x teleconverter (there's a load of maths that cancels out when you start comparing ISO, but it's still the case). Of course, such a teleconverter a) doesn't exist, and b) would introduce optical aberrations, so DX does have <i>some</i> benefits if you're trying to use the full pixel count of the sensor. If you're happy with the crop of the frame, the question is one of sensor resolution, and it's true that modern DX sensors have more pixels within their area than current FX cameras have within a DX crop of their area - a D8x0 has about the pixel density of an original D7000 within its DX crop. This isn't strictly a function of the camera being full-frame or crop-sensor: my D810 captures a lot more detail in its crop area than my (1.6x crop) Eos 300D, and Canon's 50MP 5Ds series have about the same pixel density as many of their crop bodies. Still, in terms of which is better at capturing detail, you may well have an advantage in DX on current Nikon odies (depending on your ability to add teleconverters and extension tubes). FX will capture a wider area, but if perspective isn't an issue you can always move back a bit with a DX body to make the subject smaller in the frame. You can fill the frame with a subject from further away with the same lens on DX, or with a shorter macro lens, but the important factor is usually the number of pixels you've put on the subject. You can crop an image in post-processing, but making up pixels that aren't there is harder.<br />

<br />

In any case, for a small subject, I'd always err towards the longer lens, given the choice. Macro lenses designed for flat-field copy reproduction (arguably the 55-65mm micro lenses and the 40mm DX one) are another matter - if all you've got is a long macro lens, it can be a pain to get far enough away. I've had this trouble trying to capture old paperwork with a 90mm macro. Even small subjects can be inconvenient if you want to shoot straight down - trying to capture something on a table from directly above with a 150mm macro can be a bit challenging. I stand by a 90mm as a good compromise!</p>

<p>Here's an example image from an older Tamron 90mm on full-frame (D700). This is a 'worse-case' scenario - a DX camera body or a more recent iteration of this lens than my 172E model should produce even better results. In terms of value-for-money ('bang-for-the-buck') it's probably still unbeatable.</p><div></div>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8264333">Jean Barrell</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Emmy Photo</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a third-party seller through Amazon. They could be OK, but you are not buying from Amazon in this case.</p>

<p>Yes, I looked them up and, for a gift, I don't want to risk it. I'm leaning toward a new one on Amazon for $479. There is also one for $649, I believe that is the newer model? I pulled out a lens today and the AF didn't work, it reminded me of the importance of a warranty. I'll have to tell my son that it is his gift also.</p>

If your daughter-in-law can live without AF, the Micro-Nikkor 105mm F/4

might be a nice lens, with a really good working distance. It goes to 1:2

scale without an extension ring. I assume it won't meter on a D3000 series

camera, but neither moss nor lichen will run away very far while you are

determining the best exposure by peeking at the histogram.

I liked it on my D70, and on the D750 I even get metering.

<p>By the way: AF is not really needed for most macro work, especially for objects that cannot walk or fly away.<br>

I extend out the lens as far as needed to get the required reproduction factor (or "magnification").<br>

That determines the focus distance.<br>

To focus precisely I move slightly back or forward for best focus and shoot.<br>

Mostly faster and simpler than AF.<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>