My Father loved the book - so now I want another lens....

<p>OK forum you may all remember my thread about my book & needing a cover shot. The shot which won was the Snowy Egret which was somewhat energetic & flamboyant. ;-)<br /> Well the books have been delivered. They went to my parents, my siblings & nephews, mother-in-law & father-in-law.<br /> Everyone loves it. My father, the person who wants people in basically every shot, just loves it. he asked my mother if she had seen what their daughter had created. :-) And to me he asked if I was really that good. :-D The little daughter was crying with joy (please forgive sappy little girl feeling 9 years old).<br /> My father-in-law who is the most un-impressionable person I know could not stop raving about it. Final comment - he's proud of me. :-D<br /> Anyhow, my father has given me a sum of money for which to buy myself a Christmas present. Based upon his reaction to the book I've decided upon a lens.<br /> Current lenses are, Nikon/Nikkor 14-24, 24-70, 70-200VR, 300mm AF-S f/4, 10,5 Fisheye, 50mm AiS f/1.2, 50mm AF f/1.8, 18-200mm & I may have forgotten something...<br /> Now I'm leaning towards either;<br /> a 105mm f/4 Macro (don't want VR on macro & AF is not necessary for macros) - choice of f/4 is based upon Bjorn's review of it.<br /> a 55mm Macro f/2.8 AiS<br /> a 60mm Macro AF f/2.8<br /> a 180mm AF-S f/2.8<br /> on the end of the list is the 200mm Macro and the 85mm PC tilt/shift macro lens (which I admit to not know how to use but would have to learn).<br /> I shoot a lot of flowers, macros in general, birds, headshots for my daughter & friends.... - & I want to try landscape when more opportunities come my way.<br /> So lets ignore budget & just suggest for me.<br>

I should probably add that I'm really leaning towards the 180mm f/2.8.... I've hear such fantastic stuff about it & that presently I have a D200 & D300 along with the two film cameras (FM & N90s)... But I don't have a dedicated macro any more....<br>

<br /> Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p>The lens you probably really want is the 500mm/f4 AF-S VR, but you may need to ask for more money. :-) Otherwise, I would get either the 105mm/f2.8 macro or 60mm/f2.8 macro. I prefer an f2.8 macro because more light entering means a brighter viewfinder.</p>

<p>LOL Good one Shun...... OK I have to admit, my father was not that generous... True about f/2.8 - - so I'll think about that. :-)<br>

Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p>When I hear someone asking for a macro lens recommendation, I automatically think of the 200/4 AFD. However,since you did not mention the need for greater working distance, I would assume that you could get close enoughto your subjects and that an FL of 55mm to 105mm would be sufficient.<br /> <br /> There are many excellent macro lenses, so I'd suggest going through the archives -- there are a few from Nikon, but also very, very good ones from Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, Kiron, etc...<br /> <br /> One thing worth noting: Shun mentioned his preference for f2.8. If we are talking specifically about shooting macros, I would say that f2.8 is irrelevant since you'd be stopping down anyway unless you are after a specific shallow DOF effect.<br>

In general macros requires great DOF to get the entire subject in focus. Since you are working at such close ranges, you would typicaly stop down to f16 or thereabouts. That implies two things: you will have to supply some light and you will need support. So, regardless of which lens you choose, you will need a good flash system (or DIY lighting) and a steady tripod.<br /> <br /> I rarely shoot macros anymore, but the one macro lens I did keep is the Kiron 105mm. I also highly recommend the Nikon R1C1 lighting system.<br /> Keith</p>

<p>Having f2.8 means a brighter viewfinder that helps critical manual focusing. Typically you don't actually shoot at f2.8 for macros.</p>

<p>A faster lens can still have its advantages even though you don't actually shoot it wide open.</p>

<p>Besure to check out the Voigtlander 125/2.5 macro also. It is a joy to use and yield superb pictures.</p>

<p>And f2.5 is 1/3 stop brighter then f2.8 :-)</p>

<p>Here is a link for some info <a href="http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7718">http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7718</a> <br>

If you decide to go for one, Do take the time to look for one at a reasonable price.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lil,</p>

<p> Don't overlook the Sigma 70mm 2.8 Macro. I tried one out at a camera store along with the Nikkor 60mm Macro. The focus limiter switch on the Sigma was the feature that swayed me. It keeps the lens from racking in and out its entire range when auto focusing. Also I was able to mount both lenses on my camera, take some shots in the shop and then have them printed. That way I could check IQ as well.</p>

<p> Good luck on your purchase.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, the short version is that the 85 PC is simply mind bending in how it is good. The only real drawbacks are its size (not disastrous, but still it's slightly large) and that there are better lenses if you want to go beyond 1:2. If you want to really shoot close, Zeiss makros are a very interesting option.<br>

Other than that, I do use a 105/4 and a 55/3.5 and intend to keep using them, they are good lenses. I'm tempted by the 60/2.8 AF-S, but I would like it to be faster, have a decent working distance and be smaller (I can ignore the size, but the two other points are keeping me away from it).<br>

The 180/2.8 is nice, but I'm hoping for an upgraded version. I feel it's getting quite old.<br>

So to the beef of my post, think about which focal length you really need and for what, you can't compare a 55 and a 180.</p>

<p>Lil:<br>

I don't know if you are in need of a lens of this range or speed but I got a 16-85 VR to compliment my 17-55 2.8 and I love it. It is a bit slow but is razor sharp with excellent contrast. The price from Amazon is not a budget buster.<br>

Happy New Year.<br>

-Owen</p>

<p>Hey Lil,</p>

<p>What happened to your Lester Dine 105mm macro lens? Surely it does everything the above listed macro lenses do.......?</p>

<p>You have a talent for getting out there and photographing birdlife and making a great fist of it. Save your money and try for a 500mm in the future. If you are serious enough to go to the trouble of getting to the water, taking the shots, processing, selecting and publishing your own personal portfolio of these fabulous shots then I think the writing is on the wall...........all good things are worth waiting for....</p>

<p>Cheers and congrats. on the response to your book! </p>

<p>Congrats about your book, I'm pleased to hear it was a great success, and you're so happy. Beeing almost a former Canon photographer, I still own the great 100/2,8 macro USM (Canon) and I try to find a replacement lens, from Nikon. Today, all day I was surfing the net, and I am undecided between Nikon AF-D Micro 200mm f/4.0 ED-IF and Tamron 90/2,8 macro. Since the optical quality of both lens is very good , I think the greater working distance will be (for me) more inportant than the price tag.</p>

<p>I'm not too hot about the 105/4 ... when we tested six macro lenses in the close-up range, it came out last in image quality. That doesn't mean it's a bad lens - it's just that time has moved on and there are better lenses available. The dim viewfinder image IMO is a drawback.</p>

<p>Have you considered the 100mm f/2 ZF? It gives spectacular image quality and the maximum aperture helps greatly with focusing. The 85mm PC(E) and 200mm AF-D Micro would also be worthy of consideration. The former is a great lens when you need to shoot something which is relatively planar in shape yet not perpendicular to the optical axis, such a leaf on grass. Because of the tilt you can shoot from the angle of your choice and retain the best light without compromising sharpness. The 200mm gives more working distance and simplifies backgrounds and is optically highly rated by many.</p>

 

<p>Lil<br>

I remember when you were talking about doing the book, I thought how wonderful. Glad it worked out so well.<br>

Ok the lens well I have two that you mentioned the 60 mm afd and the 180 f2. afd and I think either one would fit in with the rest of your lens, and I would have a hard time choosing. The new 60mm is better than the D and would be good for your flowers and very sharp for landscapes, the the 180 I love this lens for outdoor portraits and also for land scapes and it isn't to bad for flowers.<br>

Hard decision </p>

<p>Hi guys, sorry for being a tad slow. The problem of haveing two thread running & trying to scan in photos at the same time - along with photographing birds outside my kitchen window. :-)<br>

OK....<br>

<strong>Hi Keith</strong> ,<br>

you've actually mentioned the one lens I forgot - the 200/4 AFD - that's actually one I did think about & forgot on the list. Good one. :-) Actually I do need distance for butterflies... I did have the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 & ended up selling it to a forum member here. It was one of those spur of the moment things.... Ah well, live & learn...<br>

<strong>Hi Shun,</strong><br>

yes you're right - f/2.8 makes for a brighter viewfinder. Always good to have. :-)<br>

<strong>Hi Tommy</strong> ,<br>

looks a tad hard to get my hands on... But it does look good. :-) Thanks...<br>

<strong>Hi Steve</strong> ,<br>

sounds good. I'll take a drive to Samy's (dangerous place....) & check that one out.<br>

<strong>Hi Oscar</strong> ,<br>

thanks for the feedback. The Zeiss is a nice choice with an f/2 - but it does seem to cost thereafter. :-) Focal length - yes..... I could simply put my tube on one of my 50mm lenses & make that a macro.... Somehow I just see myself working more at a longer lens.... I do very little at 55mm......<br>

<strong>Hi Owen</strong> ,<br>

thanks for your suggestion but I have the 14-24 & the 24-70 so the 16-85VR wouldn't do much for me at this time. In that case I should buy the 70-300VR for when I'm riding the horses.... Thanks for trying to help...<br>

<strong>Hi Matthew</strong> ,<br>

my Lester A. Dine Kiron has moved to a new home. I may well buy a new one... It wasn't planned & I happened to sell it. Something unplanned & something I regret....<br>

<strong>Hi Paul</strong> ,<br>

I think you may have a good idea in the 200mm macro... I'm now really considering that one as well...<br>

<strong>Hi Ilkka</strong> ,<br>

OK so you disagree with Bjorn that's OK. Just no fights with Bjorn, remember that little Sweden is right in the middle. OK poor joke. :-) I checked out the Zeiss lens... That's a nice lens, but a lot of money.... Excellent comments. Thanks. :-)<br>

<strong>Hi Dennis</strong> ,<br>

excellent comments & yes hard decision.... Thanks for the input. I'm really debating how I want to handle this....</p>

<p>If anyone want to do a preview of the book you can do so online (I hope this is OK with Shun & Lex) at this location http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/491016 - the Blurb bookstore has a 15 page preview.<br>

Thanks for input...</p>

<p>Best wishes for 2009 - I wish for you Golden light & willing subjects :)<br /> <br /> Lil :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Get the best of both worlds and get the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro - I got mine a few weeks ago and it is simply great. I had quite a fight with myself over not buying a third party lens - glad I made the exception on this one.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd start with Bjorn's recommended Nikon 100/4 AIS Macro(Micro). They are inexpensive and readily available. If you don't like it, sell it.</p>

<p>The Nikon 180/2.8 AF-S is supposed to be superior to the Nikon 180/2.8 AIS, but the manual version is very inexpensive. If you consider the AF-S version then I would add that you should consider a used Nikon 200/2 AI or AIS at about the same price. The 200/2 AI is the sharpest lens I have owned. It is as large as a 300/2.8 though.</p>

<p>The Nikon 500/4 P AIS is also an extreme bargain to be considered.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be nice if there actually was a 180/2.8 AF-S - I'd be all over it. There only is the AF-D, and its focusing is slow, and so is the one for the 200/4 AF Macro.</p>

<p><strong>Thanks Dieter</strong> ,<br>

I'll look into that one, but I may be able to get my Kiron back & that would work for me as well. :-) And thanks for the additional information on the 180mm f/2.8 & the 200mm Macro....<br>

<strong>Hi John</strong> ,<br>

thanks for all your recommendations... Lots to think about<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>That's great to hear, Lil !<br>

Somewhere, deep inside all of us, photo people, I think we all want to be able to create something others will like to see and appreciate. It looks like you just did. Congrats.</p>

<p>I haven't anything to add to your lens quest, since I haven't any macro lenses nor have I ever shot one. However, I'll bet you put what ever you get to good use.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A tilt-shift lens will open a whole new would of photographic options. You have a great set of pro-zooms, but none can control the perspective or plane of focus like a tilt-shift. Something to think about...</p>

<p><strong>Thank you John</strong> ,<br>

The book brought back memories for my father. My father mentioned a photo of me as a little girl holding a camera. It's the very first shot taken of me holding a camera. I told him I use it as my avatar on some sites... Here's the original taken by our neighbor Maffe who's father was a professional photographer.<br>

<img src="http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p754870920-3.jpg" alt="" /><br>

The avatar is a crop...<br>

He even mentioned how I used to photograph his Royal Dansk china in the garden. That book means a lot to him & I feel I've given him something so very special.<br>

I will do my best to use whichever lens to the best of my ability & push the envelope as best I can...<br>

<strong>Hi Dan</strong> ,<br>

yes the tilt-shift lens would be a whole new world for me. It would mean a lot fo experimenting for me to do as well..... Could be fun.<br>

Thanks for all your input.</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>Lil... That sounds really nice! Uhmm! just a quick one! how many books do you think I would need to get the cash for an AF-S 500? :)<br /> Anyway... the 180 is really nice BUT if right now I was looking forward to buy it new, I would really wait to see if there s any AF-S lenses coming up. a 180 AF-S VR G would be GREAT! <br /> Congratulations on your book! Rene'</p>

<p>Oh My! hahaha Is that you? I missed that picture when I replied! Hopefully your skirts are longer now! :) Sorry! I couldn't help it! :)<br>

Now that I see your picture as a kid, I think I did something good with mine. the first day we went out shooting together I got a picture of him with his D50-AF180f/2.8 combo! Funny! The lens you want! Maybe he'll like that shot one day! Cheers!</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Hi Rene'</strong> ,<br>

To get together money for the 500mm AF-S ....... a lot. I messed up & made my book too long. If I sell a book I only get a few dollars & they'll report to the IRS. Yes - I'd have to pay taxes, though on a few dollars that's hardly a problem. :-) So honestly..... I imagine you;d have to sell a lot of books. :-)<br>

Yes, that's me - 5 years old & yes, my skirts are a lot longer these days. :-) And yes - I do believe you did right with the camera & your son. :-)<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>I did the test with Ilkka and I wouldn't draw so strong conclusions because I don't think the test setup was fool-proof enough :-) Anyway, I'd take the Zeiss any day simply because the large aperture and good contrast. I'd have to dig up some shots made with the 105/4, but I mostly shoot with the 85 and the 55. Anyway, the 105/4 is about $250, which in my mind is a pretty good deal.<br>

As for shorter macros, after playing with macro lenses and extension tubes, I just never put a tube on a regular 50; the quality just isn't up to what a macro can do and those 55/2.8's or 55/3.5's don't cost much. If you want about 100 mm for pure macro, then the 105/4, 85/2.8 PC or Zeiss 100/2 would be my first choices. If you want to do casual snapshots and macros at 105, then the 105/2.8 AF-S VR G would probably be preferable.<br>

And please check the spelling of my name. My native language is Swedish and Swedes tend to get my name right 99% of the time ;-)</p>