If I Can Only Have One Macro Lens...

[mcblue]

I'm still building my kit and I'm trying to choose a macro lens and

don't really want to get two.

 

Like, it seems logical to get the 105mm over the 60mm, but I keep

hearing different pros and cons, like the 60mm is actually sharper.

So if I can only have one macro lens for now, what should I get?

 

The 200mm is pricey and heavy, and then there's the zoom Micro Nikkor

(70-180, I think) which Thom Hogan seems to like as the aperture

remains constant and it can also serve as a medium telephoto lighter

than, say, the 70-200 VR.

 

Though I haven't posted any macro shots, I've seen the limits of

sharpness of my current lenses (18-70, 70-200, 50) for close-ups. I'd

like to expand my nature shooting into macro, especially since spring

is finally here. I'd rather not lug around the 70-200 with a 500D

lens attachment.

 

Any feedback would be appreciated.

[joseph_smith3]

I have all three Nikon macro lenses. I use and prefer the 200mm and that is the lens I would recommend you get. Yes, it is heavier and requires a tripod 99% of the time. But I use a tripod 99% of the time when I use the other macro lenses too. The other two are great lenses, but have to be used very close to their subjects, so close that these lenses do not get used very often in outdoor or in nature applications. Closeness scares away the subjects and or forces you to have bad backgrounds in your images. I bought the 200mm last; it should have been the one I bought first. If you are a Nikon shooter, get the PN-11 tube. This way, any lens can be given a tripod mount. Mounting your camera with macro lens to a tripod is a poorer solution thaan mounting the lens with camera on it to the tripod. Joe Smith

[ecarter]

Joe is on the money with his answer for focal length and distance from the subject. Unless you're shooting plants or inanimate objects, the 200mm is really the best way to go. If that one is really a no-go, I'd prefer the 105mm. The difference in sharpness from what I've seen between the 60 and 105 is minor at best - both are very sharp.

[mcblue]

Thanks Joseph and Eric.

 

I have one question about the 105mm. Is t possible to take photos with it hand-held? I know macro is one of the best reasons for having a nice tripod, but still...

 

The only things prohibitive with the 200mm is cost and weight I guess.

[ShunCheung]

Of course it is possible to shoot with the 105mm macro hand held. Whether you will be happy with the result is another question. It all depends on how demanding you are.

 

As far as I am concerned, beside long teles, macros should typically be shot on a tripod, unless your light source is a flash so that it can freeze the movement/vibration. In particular, most macro work is shot at very small apertures to gain depth of field. You are simply negating all the high quality optics we pay a lot of money for by introducing unnecessary vibration.

[mcblue]

Shun -- thanks as usual. Makes sense.

[joseph_smith3]

Yes, you can use the 105 mm hand held. And you can use the 200mm hand held. It is a trade off. You cannot compose carefully when you hand hold just as you cannot get off a quick shot with a tripod set up. So you do what you have to do to get the best image given the circumstaces. I often use my monopod in lieu of my tripod. It is easier to lean in and out to get the right focus than to focus the lens manually. Even with AF macro lenses, I almost never use them AF mode. Buy John Shaw's book, Close Ups in Nature. Joe Smith

[mark_jordan3]

Marvin,<br>

Appears as though you're interested in AF, but just as an alternate suggestion/opinion...I picked up a used Micro 200mm AIS for $400 and couldn't be happier. Alone it's 1:2 in 35mm format, but easily increased when mounted to a digital body or with one of the double element close up lenses. I've found it very easy to carry around with good working distance...and appreciate the 52mm fliter size.

[sarp_ozdemiroglu]

Buy Tamron 90 or 180, or Sigma 150, they are better than Nikkors. Even Sigma 105 is

better than Nikkor 105.

[gaius1]

Do you plan on having one lens for macro and portrait, as many folk do? Then get the 105 macro. I went another way, I have the 105 DC for portraits and the 60mm for macro. I figure that if I ever go for a digital body, the 60mm will serve as a portrait lens on that.

[joe_guzzi]

You select a micro lens focal length just like any other lens, it depends on what you will photograph and where. I bought and prefer the 60mm for orchid photography because of the shorter working distance. Orchids come in many different sizes but there aren?t too many times when I need 1:1. When I photograph a spray of flowers I?m nowhere near 1:1, the working distance would be too great with a longer lens, especially at an orchid show with crowded aisles and limited room.

[mcblue]

Thanks guys.

 

Mark - I'd rather not deal with a non-AF lens though. Also, on the D70, I'm not sure if that would even work.

 

Sarp - I'll look into the third party lenses you mentioned (though I'm getting impatient. I've been looking for other lenses as well).

 

Guy - That's an interesting question, since I was actually asking about portrait lenses earlier. But I only use digital though, and for shallow DOF portraits, I only have the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 VR (quite heavy). If the macro lenses can work as a portrait lens (as I heard some of them do), that would be great, but just an extra. I think the 105mm will be too long but while the 60mm would work out better on digital, I'd rather look for just one macro lens that works best as a macro lens instead of having the plus of being used for other applications.

[vivek iyer]

It is possible and necessary if you are shooting subjects on the move.

 

This fly (I think it is a Bee) shot was made from a handheld shot, 1/500s, SB-800 fill flash, about 2X magnification. The plane of focus could have been much better. I would have tried it as well if only I had a second chance!<div></div>

[mcblue]

Joe - Thanks. What you're saying is that depending on the subject, a different macro lens is more ideal? So if I shoot flowers, the 60mm would do best and for nervous little bugs, something longer?

 

I don't want to get two lenses at once though. Only if I end up focusing on macro a lot. Just want to expand my options for now...

[mcblue]

Vivek - That is an awesome pic! What is your lens of choice? I have an SB-800 also.

[mark_chappell]

In general, I'd recommend the 200 macro (or the Sigma or Tamron 180 macros). Most of

the time -- especially with animal subjects -- shorter focal lengths bring the front of the

lens too close for comfort to the subject. This makes it difficult to get good illumination,

especially with electronic flash (highly recommended for many macro images). You also

risk scaring your target if it's alive and alert.

 

If you can't afford one of the 180s or 200s, try the Sigma 150 (maybe wait awhile until this

new lens gets some reviews), or if necessary, lenses in the 90-105 range. I don't

recommend the 60 for the reasons mentioned above.

 

Autofocus is largely useless with most macro work, in my experience.

[luis triguez]

Vivek,

 

I envy you when see such a good picture. Well done.

[mcblue]

Mark - Thanks. The Sigma or Tamron 180mm lenses sound good. They're around the price range of the 105mm Micro Nikkor. But I still need to look into third-party brands. I've only looked into and heard about the Nikkors.

 

It's not that I'm skeptical of third-party brands. I just haven't really looked at them.

 

A friend did tell me Tamron makes some great macro lenses...

[mark_chappell]

Another hand-held macro shot (100 mm + 1.4X, with flash, about 1.4X magnification):

<P>

<CENTER>

<!--

<A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/arthropods" target="_blank">

-->

<IMG SRC="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/arthropods/greenbottlefly.jpg">

</CENTER>

[vivek iyer]

Marvin, I specifically added a title to my post just to address a specific question (about handholding).

 

Please do not ask me for one macro lens. I have a few and use most of them for different purposes.

 

This shot lacks a lot of detail that the lens used is capable of delivering. Only reason: direction of the flash light on the fly.

You will find out what I am talking about when you get your "one"lens and try it for yourself :-)

 

[i used a dedicated macro lens in a custom fabricated focus mount with a matrix chip to meter with the D70 and to activate the iTTL flash- spot metered on the fly.]

 

To start with, restrict yourself to a maximum of 1X size. Flowers are covered in the 1/10X to 1/5X magnification range. Only for much smaller flowers, insects and the like you need to go 1X. More than 1X calls for-more than anything else- a lot of patience, concentration and energy. It is always amazing to find how physically tiring it is after a 1 hour session at 2X magnifications!

 

As for your ONE lens, I have no particular suggestion. You can go with any of the micronikkors that is suggested. If you like macro work, you will buy other lenses depending on your need- just like now(the inadequacy of the 18-70, 50, and 70-200).

 

Good luck!

[vivek iyer]

Thanks Luis and Marvin for the kind comments!

 

I think the prof (a former Nikon user) shows off a much better composed and executed shot!

[mark_chappell]

... but I can't seem to avoid the periodic mistake of leaving out some crucial HTML code to

turn 'off' a URL linkage! Sorry...

<P>

 

!#*$(*&$!^*

 

<A HREF=" "></a>

[mcblue]

Mark - another fabulous shot! Got some other great shots in your directory as well...

 

(These bug shots -- beautiful and scary at the same time)

 

Vivek - So basically you're saying that I'll end up getting more than one macro lens anyway if I get really into it?

 

I'm thinking out loud, but just repeating what some of you have said, with a longer focal length, I can cover both bugs and flowers (though something like the 60mm might be more ideal for flowers and plants).

 

Although I'm tempted to get the 60mm now since I've seen a couple of people using it for portraiture on digital as well, I think I should start with at least the 105mm going up to 180-200mm (Nikon/Tamron/Sigma) just to be flexible with distance.

 

Thanks again for the help. I'll be looking into the non-Nikon lenses as well and after the Passover weekend B&H should be ready to ship stuff (hopefuly I've decided on the lens/es to get by then). Time to wipe the dust off my tripod.

[mark_chappell]

HI, Marvin. I wouldn't recommend the 60 even for flowers, although they don't have the

same tendency as small animals to be scared away by a close macro lens. Getting good

light on a flower is just as hard (maybe harder) than with an insect, and keeping your lens

front a reasonable distance from the subject is a great help. I post the following picture of

a barrel cactus in flower -- taken with a 100 mm macro -- in the probably vain hope of

getting rid of the icky unintended URL linkage...<P>

 

 

<P ALIGN=CENTER>

<!--

<A HREF="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/plants" target="_blank">

-->

<IMG SRC="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/plants/barrelcactus2.jpg">

</a>

<P ALIGN=LEFT>

[vivek iyer]

Yes, go for a longer focal length lens for better WD. The 60mm f/2.8 is notoriously bad for its ever shortening WD as it approaches 1:1.

 

On the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 (I do not own one and do not have any experience, take a look at its specs on the Sigma site), take a look here (link provided by KL IX in a previous thread)for some pleasing examples:

 

http://www.geekhavoc.com/Albums/TropicalFlowers/