Trying.. ... still confused

[erick.warburton]

I've been reading up on macro photography.... and I'm very interested. But my

confusion stems from technical jargon from which i don't understand being so

new the to art. I own a D40 and skeptical to which lens i should get....

should i get zoom or not... "regular" lenses with macro capability??? ratio???

really confused none the less.. please help with any info.

[screamin scott]

Don't bother with the zoom's with a "macro" feature as they only get to 1:2 if that....I use an older Lester A Dine 105mm F2.8 Macro manual focus lens on a D70s with great results & it doesn't cost anywhere near what the newer lenses cost....Here's an example of what the lens can do...

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1324393593_a7082118e1_o.jpg" width="800" height="667" alt="He's still here!" /></a>

[screamin scott]

OoPs!! lets try this again

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/1324393593_a7082118e1_o.jpg

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Erick - What do you want to photograph? Your interests should determine what lens or lenses make sense.

[erick.warburton]

Well of course I want to photograph small things... be insects or just to get great detail on flowers and such... my greatest concern is the quality of lens.... i hear a lot that with macro photography AF isn't a big deal, since most manually focus... but just a suggestion on lenses and what exactly ratios are referring to and such.... like what does 1:2 exactly mean? advice appreciated

[mars790]

AF is not a big deal in macro photography. In fact, i never use it on any macro shots.Do

you have a tripod and are you prepared to use it?

 

Popular macro lenses usually fall in the 60mm-105mm. You can look for a good 2nd hand

Nikon 105mm. the non VR version is a great value. I prefer 105mm over 60mm as the 105

gives more reach when trying to get close to a critter and not spooking him away.

Tamron's 90mm is sweet as well. Zooms are not recommended for optimal quality.

 

1:2 is close but true macro is 1:1 as the image on your sensor is equal to life size. Most

dedicated macro primes are 1:1<div></div>

[SCL]

Erick - you said you've been reading up, but don't understand the jargon. That suggests you really need to do quite a bit more reading and understanding before you plunk down $. The number:number refers to the ratio of the picture to the actual size of the object; ie 1:1 (one-to-one) means full size, 2:1 (two to one) means twice life size, etc. You don't say how much you are willing to spend for the lens and for other gear. For instance, many heavy macro users use a tripod, cable release, flash gear, light tents for certain hard to light objects such as jewelry, precision parts, and certain miniatures, others use macro lenses on bellows, along with focussing rails. Very few serious macro shooters use AF, because macro work can be quite critical, and often AF just isn't up to it. It can be a lot of fun, but you really will have to do some reading on your own. You can get started pretty inexpensively until you decide exactly what your primary needs are. There are plenty of good macro lenses out there, once you have a better idea of what you intend to do.

[erick.warburton]

I appreciate everyones advice... maybe my problem is I just haven't done my homework as well as i thought. I'm not really in the situation to blow a grand on equip. but of course i'm concerned about the quality of my purchase and want the most bang for my buck.

[rjacksonphoto]

A couple of good books on the subject that might help:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Macrophotography-Learning-Master-Ronan-Loaec/dp/0810991179/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-9514709-3612451?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189226999&sr=8-2

 

http://www.amazon.com/Shaws-Closeups-Nature-Practical-Photography/dp/0817440526/ref=pd_bbs_7/105-9514709-3612451?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189227055&sr=8-7

[kohanmike]

I have a D70s and decided to get the AF Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 D macro because I wanted

as few lenses as possible to carry. It was $550 US mail order from Adorama. I am very happy

with it, the macro does a very good job, here are samples.

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/Macro_Closeups.htm

[elliot1]

If you want to give macro photography a try and not break the bank, you can get a set of close-up macro lenses to add onto your current lens from about $25. They don't give as good results as a true Macro Lens but do work well enough to get you started and get reasonable results.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You're luck that there are a number of good choices in the Nikon mount. Perhaps you should just look at macro photos on flickr.com for a while. That will give you a chance to tie the types of photos that you like to the type of gear used. There are even tags for ring flash if you want to look at lighting gear.

 

Don't forget to budget a good tripod.

 

Perhaps these links will be of use:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nickwhite]

Erick,

 

Have a look at the Sigma range of Macro lenses - they all give the highest quality results. http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/macro.htm - these lenses will also give you full functionality on your D40, at much less cost than Nikon's own Macro/Micro AF-S lenses.

 

All these lenses will give you 'lifesize' ie 1:1 reproduction (at 1:1 a 10mm long insect will be 10mm on your sensor/film - at 1:2 it would be half that ie 5mm, 1:4 just 2.5mm and so on...)

 

Choice of the lens focal length will determine how far away from the subject you will be to get the same shot - eg with a 50mm lens at 'lifesize' the front element of the lens will only be about 2" from the subject, with a 105mm lens it will be nearer 7", a 200mm will take you further away still - BUT the longer the lens the more difficult it will be to hand hold (sometimes a tripod is just not an option!). Most people find that the 105mm is a good compromise. If you shoot only static subjects a 50/60mm is a good option, since it will also double as an excellent portrait length lens on your digital body.