Could anyone help to advise on macro lens?

[yk_feng]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>I am a beginner in the photography field but have strong interests in shooting of micro objects, such as insects or other small animals, I own a D90 camara with a 501.8D and 18-105 kit lens, now I am doing macro shooting with a reverse ring or extension ring extended on my 501.8D, but I will always need to take too much time to have objects focused well, recently I have a strong willingness to own a macro lens to make my shootings easier, but I feel I am not clear about the concept of "magnifying ratio" and how it impacts one's consideration when choosing a lense, so I've no idear whether I should buy a 105VR or 60AF-S Macro, could anyone feed me with some basic knowledge of macro lens, or advise on which one will fit me better?<br>

Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Brighton</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Beside size and weigth, the 105mm micro Nikkor and 60 AF-S differ mainly in</p>

<p>- Working distant, the distant between the tip of the lens to the subject at a given magnification. Both lens however have the same maximum magnification of 1:1 (1X). This mean a 24mm subject will fill the width of the picture in both. More working distant can be good or bad depending what you are shooting and conditions. For subject that concern about the lens from smacking it in bright day light, longer working distant (105 over 60) has its advantage.</p>

<p>- The 105/2.8 VR has a focal length of 105mm which differ from the 60mm. One of these key major different is prespective. The other is look of the out of focus background.</p>

<p>- The 105 micro nikkor has VR and the 60mm does not. The cost of the lens also differ by a lot.</p>

<p>IMHO, there are no right or wrong answers depending your shooting style. Typical macro lens focal length options are 35, 50, 60, 70, 90, 105, 150, 180 and 200mm. IMHO, I found the range from 60 to105mm easier to get started.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>in general a longer lens gives you more working distance for bugs, insects and critters. a 60 is good if you also want to do portraits with it, or for flat copy work. VR isn't needed for pure macro since you need to be on a tripod past 1:2 anyway. and there are many lower-cost options than the 105 VR which work just as well: tamron 90, nikon 105 AF-D, tokina 100, etc.</p>

 

[walterh]

<blockquote>

<p>"...but I will always need to take too much time to have objects focused well,..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only practice and to know what you are doing will help, not a new lens.<br>

A real macro lens will improve handling because you need no ring and do not have to reverse the lens. A real macro lens will also offer a bit of better resolution and offer a flat field of view. Getting a good book on macro photography will help a lot.<br>

Perhaps someone who was recently in the market for a book can comment.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you are shooting only static subjects, consider an old used 55mm f2.8 or f3.5. Just over a hundred bucks, and sharp as a tack. You won't have AF (which you don't need for close-up photography of static subjects) and you won't have any metering (no worries, you have a histogram on your D90 that works very well.</p>

<p>If you are shooting moving images, you want the 105VR, not the 60 (or 55) lengths, because you need the working distance.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Sorry to contradict Walter, but a proper AF macro lens will make macro shots <em>far</em> easier and quicker to take. Most of these lenses give continuous focusing from infinty down to 1:1 magnification and also allow continuous or servo focusing to keep the subject in focus. Some incorporate image stabilisation to further help with sharpness. The choice of an actual lens depends on your budget and what type of subject you mostly take. A long lens like 105mm or 180mm would be better for shy natural subjects like insects or butterflies, and a shorter lens like 60mm might be a better choice for static subjects and to double as a portrait lens.</p>

<p>Brighton, the magnification ratio gives you the size of the image in the camera compared to the size of the subject. So 1:1 means that the image on the sensor of the camera is the same size as whatever you're photographing. In other words you could fill the frame with a small postage stamp using a DX camera and a 1:1 lens.</p>

<p>To explain magnification ratios a bit further: The first number in the ratio is the size of the image and the second number is the size of the subject. 1:2 means the subject is twice as big as the image - or the image is half sized. 1:4 means the image is one-quarter as big as the subject, and so on. If the ratio is the other way round, then that means the image in the camera is bigger than the subject - 2:1 for example - means that the image is twice as big as the subject. AFAIK, there are no Nikon fit macro lenses that allow greater than lifesize magnification without the additional use of extension tubes or bellows, although Canon has such a lens.</p>

[luis_matias1]

<p>I share the Rodeo Joe and Peter Hamm views, but if you are on a tight budget the best option is the old Micro Nikkor 55mm f2.8 that is tack sharp and a really good normal lens on FX and a good portrait lens on DX bodies.</p>

[luis_matias1]

<p>I normally work with small budgets but if I had money to spend:<br>

- I would prefer the 105VR instead of 60mm<br>

- With a large budget I would go for the "all purpose" lens Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm (used market only but expensive). See Thom Hogan opinion here <a href="http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm</a></p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For 'crawly' subjects that can move, the longer the 'macro' lens the better, as a rule. Many like the 180mm or so macro lenses for this kind of work. I personally would not get less than a 100mm something macro for your task.</p>

<p>This will increase not the image size (which almost by definition on these lenses is 1:1) but will increase the working distance from the front of the lens to the subject.</p>

<p>VR is nice if you're working without a tripod. No matter what lens, the depth of field - as you have already discovered with your reversed lens- is going to be very small.</p>

<p>The contradiction here is keeping focus without a tripod, and possibly losing the subject off the edges if you do use a tripod. You have to deal with this, you cannot really resolve it.</p>

[johnny_kleso]

<p>I was just rreading a Review on the Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro or the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 SP Di macro that said they was very good maybe better than the Nikon.</p>

[chuck_crutchfield]

<p>I had a Tamron 90 macro and was quite happy with it until my gear was stolen. I replaced it with a Tamron 60 f/2 and have about the same working distance (the 60 is IF and doesn't lengthen) and a faster lens more applicable to portrait work. I'm quite happy with my choice.</p>

 

[yk_feng]

<p>Dear my friends,<br>

Thanks very much for all of your kind advices on my lens choosing! Also I am now clearer about the magnification ratio, special thanks for Tommy Lee and Joe Rodeo for your comprehensive interpretation.<br>

I will gonna know more about each of your suggestions before I can make my decision. Thanks a lot!<br>

Best regards,<br>

Brighton</p>

 

[nick_baker]

<p>Dear Brighton</p>

<p>Since you say you are only beginning in macro, and that you are interested in small animals including insects, and I assume convenience of use is a factor in moving beyond a reversing ring, perhaps you should consider the Nikon 85mm VR first? It seems to offer a combination of convenience and budget that would provide a good start. While there is nothing wrong with the other suggestions you have received, all options have strengths and weaknesses, eg longer lenses provide greater working distance indeed, but they are more expensive, heavier, and impose some restrictions eg on shutter speed. You may get equal or better optical performance at a discount from Tamron or Tokina or from manual focus lenses, but you may find the AFS performance and VR of the 85mm make macro easier to explore. The 85mm VR is a compromise suggestion, but maybe that's what you need at first.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>While my first macro work was done with screw-mount Leicas (reflex housing, bellows and extension tubes), my best results were with F series Nikon bodies and Micro Nikkor lenses. My first macro lens was the excellent 60mm Micro Nikkor, but it did not allow as much working distance as I would have liked. So my next one was the 105mm Micro Nikkor. Still, it didn't give me the versatility that I wanted. What else but saving up for the 200mm Micro Nikkor. (Not cheap.) Eventually I had the amount that I needed, but by then I found the 85mm tilt/shift Micro Nikkor to be very interesting (at about the same price). After a bit of soul searching I went for it. It is now my primary macro lens. Well it doesn't give great working distance, but I found that I could use my 300 f/4 along with extension tubes and/or auxiliary lenses ("diopters") for the few occasions when needed.<br /> Not to digress any further, but if I had to choose between the 60 and 105, it would be the 105 macro. I am certain that it would serve you well.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Rodeo Joe I agree with you for close range shots.<br>

For example I shoot a lot of cat kittens so my best lens for the job ist the 70mm-180mm Nikkor AF macro zoom (that is no longer produced).I certainly appreciate the possibility to use AF and to zoom. Did I mention these kittens move fast? ^^</p>

<p>For real Macro say close to 1:2 or 1:1 I use focus to set the reproduction ratio and focus by moving the camera with lens to or from the object. With some experience this works better for me than to focus first, then change distance again, refocus and so on. Also manual lenses tend to be more precise in focusing and usually the AF focus ring is not as convenient to use as a manual focus ring.</p>

<p>Of course this may be different for different people and their shooting habit. So perhaps a good advice is to try and find out what work best for you. Some dealers let you rent or borrow a lens or two.</p>

 

[gary_mayo1]

<p>This is a Nikon thread, and everyone jumps on a "Macro" question as if it was serious.</p>

<p>He has one post guys. </p>

<p>Micro, not Macro. folks. Nikon, remember?</p>

<p>Me thinks you been had.</p>

[yk_feng]

<p>Hey upstair guy, everybody understands what macro lens means, meaningless to "correct" me.<br>

Also I don't think I have posted under wrong thread, I was asking for a suggestion between 2 Nikon lens actually.<br>

Lastly, everyone has his first post in a forum just like yourself years ago, correct? my senior peer...</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>I am glad to see your question was real, I may owe someone five bucks over this.</p>

<p>At two posts, I will accept your question as earnest.</p>

<p>A lens is like a pair of jeans. One size does not fit all. The 60mm lens is good, the 105mm lens is recognized as a little better by some.</p>

<p>The lens is only a tool. A tool in the proper hands is where the wonder takes place.</p>

<p>It is interesting to note EVERY lens manufacturer calls it Macro, to my knowledge, EXCEPT Nikon, that calls it Micro.</p>

<p>Welcome to the forums!</p>