Nikon 70-300 for close up's

<p>I have a D700. I do some macro with a 105 2.8.<br>

There are times when I feel a zoom would be better for example when I want to frame a whole flower or several.<br>

This of course it can be done with the 105. I note that the 70-300 is 1:4.<br>

In real terms would for example an orange fill the frame. Any help or links much appreciated.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In real terms would for example an orange fill the frame."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>At 1:4, anything equal to or larger than 4 x 24mm = 96mm (3¾in) would fill an FX/35mm frame. So most oranges would not, but most grapefruits would. :-)</p>

<p>Michael answered the question better than I could, but as a note: I don't think any 70-300mm zoom is an ideal macro choice.<br>

I'd add a teleconverter or Kenko extension tube to your 105mm as high quality/low cost options first. If you were adding equipment from there, the long discontinued, now hard to find, and expensive Nikon 70-180mm is the only true macro zoom I know of. The Nikon 200mm micro is stellar. The Tamron version has a good reputation, though I haven't used it. I think Sigma makes one, too.</p>

<p>Well, if you're using the 70-300/4-5.6 AFD and you must fill the frame with an orange using that particular lens (and assuming you're open to using accessories), then a Nikon 5T should be handy. I have used that combo in the past and the results were quite good (not as great as a dedicated macro prime but good enough).<br>

The Nikon achromats are a bit hard to find these days so the 2-diopter achromat from raynox 5320 combo should fit the bill just as well.</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure this suggestion would help you, but I use a Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D Macro (1:2) for my general and macro work and find it to be very efficient. Here is a quick shot, and other samples:<br>

http://www.kohanmike.com/samples_24_85.htm</p><div></div>

<p>I have a 70-300VR and 105VR with a D700. I've used the 70-300VR for insects etc that are out of reach. The results were just OK and nothing you would want to enlarge much. </p>

<p>I've used a 5T on my 70-300/ED, and the results were good. I actually like the lens better in this application than in it's intended use.</p>

<p>John Shaw wrote of using this combo in his "Nature Photography Field Guide." I almost always carry a close-up filter when I'm not packing a dedicated macro.</p>

I use my 70-300VR + 25mm Kenko extension tube, with wonderfull results. It's so easy to frame and focus using a zoom lens. Perhaps this is the reason why the Nikkor 70-180 Micro was so popular.<div></div>

<p>yes, I agree that a 70-300 plus something like 6T (unfortunately no longer made) with a step down ring gives nice results. It probably won't be as nice as a dedicated macro but one aspect that is very important as someone referenced in Shaw's book is working distance and at 300mm you get a lot of working distance which is key when working with nervous subjects like the beautiful dragonfly photo above that Paul B. submitted.</p>

<p>Tanks Paul..., I'm glad you like my dragonfly. And yes, the working distance is huge..., if I can remember well , the above picture was taken from aprox 2m, handheld (no crop).</p>

Orange is 3.25" tall (3.5" with stem). Nikon D80 & 70-300ED @ 300mm. Uncropped.<div></div>

<p>A good quality closeup diopter is always a good option for traveling light. I almost always have one with me, usually an Olympus brand diopter left over from my OM kit. It's a 49mm filter size but fits my 52mm filter Nikkors without vignetting on the D2H, due to the crop. Very handy when I just want to tote a single prime like a 50/1.8 or 105/2.5, and gets me even closer with the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor. Retains the convenience of AF and no loss of effective maximum aperture.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your kind advice, time and trouble taken to respond. Much appreciated. Just what I need.</p>