macrophoto choices

<p>Hi to all,<br>

I shoot with Nikon D7100 and have the Nikkor 16-85 and Nikkor 70-200/4 lenses. I wish to be able to photo flowers, etc. with more magnification than currently with my 70-200 lens. What are peoples' opinions regarding using Canon's well-regarded close up filter, Canon 500D, versus an extension tube eg Nikon's PK series versus spending more money for Nikon's micro lenses eg 60/2.8 or 105/2.8? I wouldn't be doing a lot of macrophotography probably to justify spending $5-900 on a macro lens so I'm wondering how well the extension tubes would be as an alternative and what size and brand used with my above camera and lenses? Reviews in Adorama say Nikon's PK tubes don't fit on G lenses. Is that the case? Or would Canon's 500D closeup filter on my 70-200 be a reasonable alternative. Thanks in advance. Skip Wilson</p>

<p>You could always buy one of the manual focus Micro-Nikkor lenses through KEH.com and get extension tubes as well. The D7100 works just fine with the Manual focus AI and AIS lenses</p>

<p>One like this and some extension tubes would be inexpensive probably under $100.00</p>

<p>https://www.keh.com/220950/nikon-55mm-f-3-5-micro-ai-manual-focus-lens-52</p>

<p>The extension tube that gets you to 1:1 ratio is also available</p>

<p>https://www.keh.com/216664/nikon-manual-focus-pk13-auto-ext-ring-27-5mm-55-micro-ai-1-1</p>

<p>Total of the two is about $110.00 72 for the lens 37 for the extension tube.</p>

<p>The close up filters, in my view, are a really nice balance between quality, budget and usability. While with extension tubes you might get better results, they're a bit more of a hassle (especially with G lenses, indeed the PK tubes won't work as they cannot operate the aperture). With the filters, as long as you stick to known good ones (indeed the Canon ones), they're a convenient and not too costly way to get the job done.<br>

In terms of quality, the real macro lenses are serious step up, but indeed also the price. I'd consider the 3rd party lenses, though. They're at least as good, and cost a lot less - and all of them are fine performers.<br>

Another option worth considering is the one Lorne pointed out: your D7100 can meter with old Ai/AiS lenses (manual focus lenses); the Nikon 55mm macro (f/3.5 or f/2.8) can often be found for relatively little money, and it is an excellent performer.</p>

<p>I use the Micro-Nikkor 3.5 55mm AI lens with a PK-13 extension tube on my D7000 and D200 with excellent results. An extension tube is superior to a closeup attachment lens because it doesn't add any optical elements to the setup.<br>

I also have the Nikon version of the Canon closeup attachment lens but if you try either that or the Canon version make sure the diameter is big enough to fit your lens. Both versions are high-end as far as closeup accessory lenses go, good enough that nature photograher John Shaw recommended them in one of this books and he's pretty picky.</p>

<p>@Craig: I don't think an extension tube is better than a good close up lens, both options have their pros and cons. When looking at close up lenses make sure you choose a coated diopter, stay away from the cheap offerings (3 lenses, +1, +2, +x for USD 60 or so), these will disapoint.</p>

<p>In the end most people will opt for a real macro lens, as stated by other posters these don't have to be expensive. All or most macro lenses offer good quality and because macro is the field of manual focus AF is irrelevant. </p>

 

<p>I would suggest an AF Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 D which are reasonably priced used, very sharp and will work well on the D7100.</p>

<p>Alternatively for flowers ( not for bugs) a Nikon 40mm AF-S f2.8G Micro Nikkor at around US-D 270 , could be a very nice addition to your set-up, giving you a reasonably fast "nornmal" lens and a macro up to 1:1 in one go.<br>

Advantages oposed to the 55mm F/3.5 AI-S lense combined with extenstion tube (PN-11) :<br>

- it has got AF when to be used as a normal lens ( for Macro work i never use AF..)<br>

- It will fit all recent Nikon DSLR's giving access to all camera functions<br>

- It is lightweight ( 55mm AI_S + PN-11 are much bulkier together)<br>

- It is faster than than any 55mm + PN-11 combo.</p>

<p>I mention "not for bugs" because for 1:1 magnification it is very hard to get enough light in a lot of cases because the shooting Distance get's so short, but for flowers using s DX camera it is (i think) a very usefull little gem..</p>

<p>If you're not shooting things that are moving much, the 55mm f3.5 is SO good for this that when I left Nikon for µ43 I kept it and got an adaptor. It's really cheap and great and you probably don't need an extension tube.</p>

<p>I also have a 55mm f3.5 and think it's great. The focal length is a little short on FX but on DX it's perfect.</p>

<p>I bought mine 8 years ago and paid around $60 for lens and PK13 extension.</p>

<p>I also have the 105mm f4 micro it's also great but more expensive. It has a longer working distance.</p>

<p>Close up lenses only makes sense if you want some macro capability but you don't want to carry an additional lens.</p>

<div></div>

<p>PS. Don't know if it can be calculated but see if you can find out what kind of magnification ratio you will get with the 500D filter and the 70-200 f4. It is possible that the magnification will not be enough for you.</p>

<p>Old Nikon macro lenses get 1:2 magnification without extension and 1:1 with the extension. All newer macro lenses goes to 1:1. </p>

 

<p>I used to have a used Nikkor micro 55/2.8 AiS manual focus but it didn't meter for auto exposure, Wouter. I think that was with my old D90. Does it truly meter for auto for exposure on the D7100? The diaphragm leaves got stuck and it was sold eventually. I'm willing to try another 55/2.8 AiS micro lens again if it really does meter for exposure with the D7100. How do people feel about the Nikon 40/2.8 micro compared to the used 55/2.8 AiS? The latter lens is proving hard to find at Adorama and KEH used unless they are in poor condition. Thanks Skip</p>

It really will meter with a D7100 (indeed not with a D90).

<p>I do own and use multiple Makro lenses, among them are a 55mm F2.8, 55mm F3.5, AF-D 60mm F2.8, a Sigma 150mm F2.8 , Bellows PB4 + various enlarger lenses, and.. a 40mm F2.8 Nikkor.<br /> For camera's I use a D300 & a D300S<br /> For Flowers nowadays i mostly choose to use the 40mm f2.8, especially when going to garden flowershows , because it is lightweight, pocketable small, and produces very sharp images on the D300 / D300S, furthermore it is also usefull for non macro shooting.</p>

<p>SO nothing against the 55m versions, i do like them both a lot, but on some points the 40mm beats them in my opinion ( on DX that is obviously).<br /> Also the 60mm AF-D is a star performer, but i find it to slow when i need AF for non macro purposes.<br /> The Sigma is extremely sharp but the focal lenght makes it more difficult to use for some subjects ( on DX...),.</p>

<p>Showing how personal the choice for a special purpose lens can be...</p>

<p>Sindce i like the reviews on Photozone , here is a link for the 40mm review <br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/674-afs40f28dx?start=2</p>

<p>If I were to choose between the Nikkor 60/2.0 macro vs the Nikkor 40/2.0 macro which one might be a better choice? They both work with all metering modes automatically and give a mag ratio of 1:1 without extension tubes as I understand and while one may enjoy a 2+ inch increase in working space or focusing distance with the 60/2.8 there is an increase in cost. I think neither have VR. Correct me if I'm wrong. I know the 60/20 macro was a lens from the late 1980's and does the more recent 40/2.8 macro have any advantages weighing toward it in the decision of which lens to buy? Thanks Skip</p>

<p>Nikon doesn't have a 60mm f/2.0 but they do have various 60mm f/2.8 AF, AF D, and AF-S G Micro versions. I would highly recommend the AF-S G version, it is truly an excellent lens, both as a macro as well as a general purpose normal / short tele. I have not used the 40mm but think that for most general purpose close-up work 60mm would be a good choice for DX, whereas 85mm to 105mm are good choices for FX. The AF-S 60mm Micro is one of my very favorite lenses.</p>

<p>I'm sorry. On my above post I meant to say that the two lenses for comparison were the Nikkor 40/2.8 macro and the Nikkor 60/2.8 macro Skip</p>

<p>The Tamron 60mm f2 makes a very good medium length macro and has a wide enough MAX aperture to throw out backgrounds for portrait work. It's sharp enough to use wide open too, unlike my copy of the 60mm 2.8D which is a bit soft wide open....but it is a bit beat-up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were to choose between the Nikkor 60/2.0 macro vs the Nikkor 40/2.0 macro which one might be a better choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both are very usefull lenses, the 60mm is more versatile, but as you say it costs around twice the amount of the 40mm, and also weighs twice the weight of the 40mm.<br>

<br /> if you don't care about the money, then the 60mm is more versatile because it gives you more workiing distance which , if you need 1:1 is an important advantage because it is easier to get the required amount of light on your subject, which is more difficult when using the 40mm at 1:1..<br>

<br /> The 40mm weighs less, which can be an interesting factor too.<br>

<br /> If you are willing to spend the amount which covers the 60mm, then there are more choices obviously, like the well known tamron 90mm , which at this point in time (where i live) is at exactly the same price as the Nikon 60mm micro.</p>

<p>In between, pricewise that is, you find the Tokina AT-X M 100mm f/2.8 AF Pro D Macro, which is said to be also an outstanding good lens whch has its own signature in the way it renders colour, and also produces a nice micro contrast.</p>

<p>But as i understood it, and i may be wrong there, you do not want to spend a lot of money on a macro lense , and you want a solution for occasional use, and that would put miy choice on the 40mm Nikkor as for flowers most ppl do not use 1:1 magnification.....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't understand why you would want an autofocus lens for a <strong>dedicated</strong> macro lens?</p>

<p>It's much easier to focus manually - either on the ground glass or through live view where you can zoom in. And a manual focus lens is a lot easier to focus manually than any AF lens. At least in my experience I should add.</p>

<p>The 55mm f3.5 micro AI btw is the same weight as the DX 40mm f2.8 micro AF-S.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What are peoples' opinions regarding using Canon's well-regarded close up filter, Canon 500D, versus an extension tube eg Nikon's PK series versus spending more money for Nikon's micro lenses eg 60/2.8 or 105/2.8?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used various close-up options.<br /><br />Based on what you described, my first choice is a 60mm f/2.8 macro lens.<br /><br />My second choice is a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens.<br /><br />My third choice is an extension tube on a 60mm or a 105mm macro lens.<br /><br /> </div>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand why you would want an autofocus lens for a <strong>dedicated</strong> macro lens?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So that when you want to advance in your macro shooting skills and abilities you can try automated Focus Stacking via software like Helicon or Digital Dashboard.</p>

<p>I also like AF for chasing flying bugs....like dragonflies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So that when you want to advance in your macro shooting skills and abilities you can try automated Focus Stacking via software like Helicon or Digital Dashboard.<br>

I also like AF for chasing flying bugs....like dragonflies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for taking time to reply Mike.</p>

<p>I always thought that automated focus stacking was done by automating the focus rail. Like this: http://www.cognisys-inc.com/products/stackshot/stackshot.php</p>

<p>Anyway I see your point on flying bugs. That would be pretty hard to do manually.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand why you would want an autofocus lens for a <strong>dedicated</strong> macro lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Pete,<br>

I like to use my AF Macro lenses also for different subjects, so to me they are not "dedicated Macro" ( the only lenses i use as dedicated macro are the enlarger lenses which i use on my bellows)<br>

My 60mm AF-D is also very usefull as a portraiture lens.<br>

At flowershows and the like, it is very usefull to have my 40mm AF when doing "Multi Flower Shots" , especially when you cannot spend a lot of time with the other visitors around you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>automated focus stacking was done by automating the focus rail</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There are two distinctly different methods of focus stacking</p>

<p>One involves leaving the lens fixed, in terms of focus distance and moving the camera on a rack..</p>

<p>and the other involves moving the focal plane by changing lens' focus distance and leaving the camera stationary.</p>

<p>The main issue between the two is perspective changes. Imagine shooting a can of Coke from a slight above angle. If you move the camera with a fixed lens, the can remains a perfect cylinder, if you change lens focus and keep the camera still, it appears to taper. </p>

<p>In the second method, the lens' focus is moved automatically at set steps by the AF motor such as every 2mm, say from 70mm > 100mm, producing 15 frames. In the former method, the <em>rack</em> moves everything 2mm per step from 70mm > 100mm producing 15 frames.</p>

Since a 55mm Ai-s micro

Nikkor can be got for less

than the +2 dioptre Canon

close-up lens in any reasonably large size, to me it's a

no-brainer choice. The micro-

Nikkor will get you to 1:2

magnification without any

additional extension tube,

which will be plenty to

capture all but the smallest

of flowers on a DX body.

 

 

A 2 dioptre CU filter will

get you within 500mm of the

subject, and maybe down to

around 300mm depending on the

primary lens and its minimum

focusing distance. It'll also

lose you some image quality.

That's not very impressive compared to the

superb IQ and magnification

you can get from an old

micro-Nikkor.