Anything better than the Nikon 105 AF-D micro?

[photo_galleries]

<p>As others have said, you may want to refine your technique before looking at more gear... BUT, if you want to consider other gear:</p>

<p>1) Macro, IN GENERAL BUT NOT ALWAYS, is about balancing sufficient DOF and sufficient light; the problem, is, once you stop down and things get dark, you need to supply the light. Now the fun begins, since there are many ways to do that in many combinations: Myself, I use a combination of Nikon R1 and SB-R200's, and sometimes add in an SB-800. mirrors, diffusers, and whatever else is handy.</p>

<p>2) Macro is about being steady - so, IMHO, a very good tripod is a MUST.</p>

<p>3) Lens options - as mentioned, the Nikon 60, 105 and 200 should pretty much cover all your needs. If you want to try non-Nikons, the Kiron 105/2.8 tops the list (this is only macro lens that I have kept), as well as Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Vivitar, etc..., mostly in 90mm or 105mm.</p>

<p>4) You can also try reversing lenses from >1:1 magnifications</p>

<p>5) The Nikon 20/3.5 AIS AND a K1 extension ring gives you a wide angle macro (interesting effect), but at very close range.</p>

<p>And, granted, while I myself should take my own advice and improve my own technique, here are a couple of sample macros and close-up's.</p>

<p><img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p682092691-3.jpg" alt="" /><br /><img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p979904530-3.jpg" alt="" /><br /><img src="http://magnum.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p719511592-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mike_whalen]

<p>I agree with others about ways to make your images sharper and more dramatic. I don't know much about the Nikon 105 since I use the Canon 100 f2.0 macro, but before I'd buy a new lens try these suggestions if you haven't already: 1) use a sturdy tripod so your camera has no motion whatsoever; 2) make sure there is no wind; bring your subject inside (if possible) or shoot when there is no subject motion; 3) use your lens at it's sharpest point or nearby (probably between f4- f11); 4) use mirror lock-up and the 2-second timer; 5) use manual focus; 6) use live-view to focus if your camera has this capability; 7) set camera to ISO 200 or below and 8) use software (such as Lightroom or similar) to a) sharper further; b) add contrast; c) make the darks darker; d) add a little more saturation and clarity.<br>

You may also want to try getting up and out around sunrise to get your best light and colors. Flowers make great subjects, but I would also look for other things to shoot as well to make your site more variable.</p>

[mike_whalen]

<p>After reading your message a little more carefully, i suspect you are probably a film shooter, so I apologize for including some digital suggestions in the list.</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>Dear photo.netters,<br>

Thank you for your comments.<br>

I did not expect criticisms of my website and photography, which has won me awards, publication credits, the satisfaction of educating others about wildflowers, has brought the ill health (a small volunteer project), as well as being personally very fulfilling.<br>

My website has many unpublished internal links to some of my more recent photos (I made that site with my college work). Please ask if you want to critize my art more.<br>

I have thousands of slides of hundreds of plants. I photograph the same plants as they bloom annually and so must find ways to keep my passion "blooming" (pun playfully intended). I noticed that my 105 2.8 AF-D is so well used that I should possibly research anything better. So your notes are appreciated. (A small step up with this lens could means a huge leap forward).<br>

Some of your ideas are not new. I have the 20 3.5 and K1, as well as a voigthlander 20 3.5 which focuses just as close.<br>

I have a very dated tripod (read: not Gitzo) that is great for low angle work and a low-angle tripod head that causes me headaches because tripod plates are now impossible to find. The item is bomb proof.<br>

I think the reason my 105 is so well used is because:<br>

It is handholdable<br>

It focuses to 1:1,<br>

It generates a pleasing background blur (better than a 60 macro)</p>

<p>To go to a 200 micro (which I have) to get the flowers I walk to would be backbreaking, but I've done it. I find the tripod and 200mm angle limiting (too far from the subject), except when I need to concentrate.<br>

So work with a new lighting set-up? This is an excellent suggestion. But I will have to stop using my favorite camera, the Kodak SLR/n (this is from the SB-80 days), and my velvia 100 film is very fussy.<br>

Perhaps your suggestion is to scan better work, that would consume me because Nikon discontinues their scanners faster than I can buy them...<br>

I could probably scan a picture I have to please any critic (or post a digital capture).<br>

I practically use my pictures as research botany projects, so I don't think I need new subjects. In fact, I have gotten the beast of a macro system, the Rollei SL66, once called "the best macro camera [system] on the planet." To get a new impression on my annual wildflower pilgramages.<br>

I was once a published photojournalist, on the smallest scale possible, and have a small collection of photographs of tropical leaves for use in my (paper-based, drawing) art.<br>

This is what I want and I want to improve it, so I'm asking if there's a better lens than my most loved and used. <br>

If your criticsms of my dated website is to "do it better," I would start arguing with you that my flowers are not as photogenic as yours IMHO LOL. ha ha ha/<br>

I do know to photograph flowers that are not in the sun, or to at least use flash to cut shadows. But I do not have an assistant to hold an umbrella.<br>

Thank you, (I'm sure there are others who take critism better than me).<br>

The Zeiss 100 2.0 sounds like a great suggestion with great reviews.<br>

Matthew Smith</p>

<p> </p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Sometimes I do wonder why we even bother to answer questions.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Bjorn in the end we learn by getting comments to our answers :-)<br>

Matthew I think we all tried in good spirit to help out. So please be not offended. I am not the greatest photographer in the world but know the difference a better lens makes and what to expect from a workflow and the way of shooting.</p>

<p>Along this line: if you take so many macro fotos you really should consider going digital. You loose more IQ by scanning than what you get from a better lens. The expense for a new body is repaid by not spending for film and development/scanning in a year or so. The immediate evaluation of the image can be extremely useful if you shoot rare wildflowers. I do documentation of plants and would not want to miss the immediate feedback.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>Matthew I have am no champion but your work is average. If you don't want others to view dont add the link to your page. Your question was well answered by some expert photographers and there time seems to be wasted. If you want praise just ask you wife. If you want advise and real opinions you will get them here. If your happy with your work thats all that counts. when I view it I am not inspired.</p>

[zack_lau]

How about the 85mm f2.8 PC? I've experimented with tilt/shift using a PB-4 bellows--but it was too much work for use in the field.

[jim_nelson5]

<p>New member, long-time viewer. Shun and Bjorn, please know that all answers are greatly appreciated by a lot of us. I have learned much from all the posters and moderators. <br>

Happy Holidays<br>

Jim</p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>delete</p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>The answer is not another lens...it's giving thought to composition, light, and technique. You can buy another lens if you want to, but that won't improve your photography. Don't just "hear"..."listen."</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>This is a joke right?<br>

The critiquers themselves can't take being critized?<br>

I asked a specific question about a specific lens and someone photo.net google stalked me and then posted that link. (Thanks Shun for looking me up! Any publicity is good)<br>

I am particularly saddened that Dr. Rorslett doesn't like my photography because he has been my idol for some time.<br>

I haven't even begun to prepare for a portofolio competition.<br>

In case you are keeping score, I do use digital extensively and have a kodak slr/n. It is a fantastic camera but to use the I-TTL I will not only need to buy a D700, but also an F6!<br>

I guess my question may have universal appeal in that "when you use only one lens" how do you make it better or "when you do you max out on quality."<br>

I use a lot I've learned at photo.net and from studing macro photography pricesly. I don't know anyone else who knows what polaroid MP-4 is!<br>

I enjoy mixed technique with medium format and digital and film. <br>

If I were to spend money to have someone critise my photography, I hope they would say "display, display, display!" Hand coding a 3x3 frame loses dynamism, but all my work is honest.<br>

Otherwise, how do you prepare a jpeg for the web, I simply store it at medium resolution and size 300x 200 pixels?<br>

Speaking of my wife and praise, a collection of my new work is at:<br>

<a href="http://www.wildflowerartphotography.com/paper.html">http://www.wildflowerartphotography.com/paper.html</a><br>

Don't tell her I said so.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Matt</p>

<p>P.S I loved your comments and critisms but I think some of my "average" work would be stellar with the right development and display.</p>

<p> </p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>Hold on now. You said, "I am hoping for suggestions to improve my photography." That's what you wanted right? Well, lenses aren't going to do it. Exposure, mastering your depth of field (not necessarily maximizing it), understanding the flow and placement in your composition...those things will improve your photography (based upon what I saw...my opinion of course). If you are happy with what you shoot then that is great because that is all that really matters in the end, and photography is art...not a competition (art "contests" are something I have never understood...but I'm weird and I know it). But...since you're asking for the advice of trained eyes, we will tell you what we think. What you do with that input is up to you, but...you haven't "maxed-out on quality" with your current lenses and new ones won't make you a better photographer, and that's what you indicated you wanted advice about. Incidentally, I do a lot of wildflower/woodland plant photography...I can definitely use your site for ID assistance...thank you...that's cool for me!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should point out that Matthew Smith, the OP, did not ask for critique of his web site, although his question might have shifted since his original post.</p>

<p>Whenever someone asks for equipment advice, I typically would like to see his/her portfolio to get an idea of their photography interest so that we can provide more appropriate suggestions. As I pointed out earlier, the OP's web site is clearly listed under his photo.net membership page. I certainly did not use any search engine to locate it.</p>

<p>Personally, I am a firm believer that generally speaking, the photographer is the main limitation, not the equipment. I am sure most of you have seen this current thread about what is limiting one's photography, and I posted the first answer pointing out that I myself is the primary limitation: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VEkN">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VEkN</a><br>

I believe that is true for by far the majority of us here, and everybody should focus on improving his/her photo skills first and worry about equipment second. In particular, the OP already owns some very fine macro lenses.</p>

<p>However, apparently Matthew is happy with his flower photography, and since he did not ask for critiques, I would appreciate that if we can all stop criticizing his images; I am afraid that has not been helpful.</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>This thread has really turned into a trainwreck. The OP asked for suggestions on how to improve his photography (it's right in the first post), but seems to only want gear suggestions.</p>

<p>There has been a lot of great advice in this thread as I'm also starting to experiment with macro photography, keep it coming as I will continue to try and improve my craft beyond simply buying new stuff, so thank you to the contributors.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Like mathematics, photography builds on axioms. Unless you accept them, you're getting nowhere. However, unlike mathematics, photographic axioms are very simple and easy to understand.</p>

<p>The one relevant for this thread is "The photographer takes the picture". Understanding what this entails will show you the direction to follow.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should point out again nobody here is suggesting that "camera/equipment does not matter." A better camera, a different lens can potentially make a difference in your photography, but that is, at best, a secondary factor.</p>

<p>By far the most important factor is the person behind the camera. And regardless how great a photographer you may already be, there is always room for improvement.</p>

[wildflower art]

<p>I have some comments, about how the photo.neters are getting defensive over me getting defensive, and about how I will try to improve my craft and share my vision.<br>

I know photography is often about making do with what you have, a huge portion of photography is enjoying yourself within limitations.<br>

I am trying to do something very simple but to me powerful, elevate the picture of the flower to art. There are more than just axioms, things like the rule of thirds which is a powerful ally to the plant photographer. Centering a plant portrait can ruin it.<br>

So many of my photographer colleges are just flower documenters, their pictures just wind up in fieldguides at best. So many of my competitors on the web and in galleries do not know the subitites of the plant's physique, or its name, or the rules of photography. (Go to an ag fair and judge the flower pictures you see there!) Some of my scientist colleges just snap away like daytrippers, failing to see beauty in what they do.<br>

It is strange that in this post someone said "stop taking pictures of flowers." That would be like telling a young Ansel Adams to stop taking lanscapes! (were I to compare myself to Ansel Adams.<br>

I don't know if over using a lens can limit your vision, but I see room to improve.<br>

I am not trying to make a living from plant photography, but I find it artisticly expressive. Taking more than one picture, sometimes a whole roll on a flower, shows me what I would be missing if I was just a botanist. Photographing wildflowers shows me what I would be missing if I were only thinking about someone else's goals.<br>

If you were to get inside and outside the mind of a flower, how would it be seen? How do you take a picture of the plants that grow outside your door and make it into a scene that you would like to remember? How do you go to the same spot year after year to the very same plants and keep the photography dynamic and inspirational?<br>

These are the issues I'm addressing, and I find it very enjoyable, if not expensive and filled with the pitfall that every shot brings the desire for more equipment.<br>

What would be more enjoyable then dedicating yourself to a craft that you can always be shown room for improvement?<br>

I have all the books, all the macro and flower photography guides, and sometimes I find them manipulated and benign, but the rules are always useful.<br>

There's more to photography then technical precision.<br>

I guess you're telling me my next book should be "the business of nature photography" by John Shaw so that I can be tested by commercial success. I think that would ruin me because I can't see selling a picture for $150, even if that fee would just cover the frame or matting. I would be selling my soul to go to a stock agency.<br>

So I'm stuck trying to show myself how midatlantic wildflowers are some of the most beautiful. The scenes I most love are fields of flowers, but those are rare in my developed region of the world.<br>

Could you buy a lens for a single shot? Sometimes this is what I think about. I sometimes find myself using a similar item to take a picture that I wanted a lens that costs three times as much to do. The results are often worth it.<br>

I guess you're telling me you can never be good at what you do. In art's eyes that goes with luster, but not subject and craft.<br>

Thank you! I enjoyed your reviews of the Zeiss 100 2.0.<br>

Matthew</p>

<p> </p>