Macro lens for botany

[johncox]

<p>Right now I have two systems for two types of photography I do. I shoot digital for streetscapes and architecture. Macro (botany) is done with a bronica MF setup. My lens kit is limited to a 28-70 2.8, and 35 1.4 on the digital, and 75 (EII), 150(PE), and extension tubes on the bronica.</p>

<p>I’d like to add macro capabilities to the Nikon setup (to scale down to one body and reduce film costs). I would also rather not spend a whole lot so I can save up for a nice tilt shift PC Nikkor.</p>

<p>The options I've come up with are,</p>

<p><strong>Extension tubes and an 85 1.8</strong></p>

<p><strong>Tamron 90 2.8 macro</strong></p>

<p><strong>Nikon 60 2.8 macro</strong></p>

<p><strong>Bronica to Nikon adapter</strong> (this is the cheapest I can think on and probably the best. I can use my existing setup and multiple lenses.)</p>

<p>What would be the better way to go here, or have I missed something. My budget is around $600.<br>

Thanks,<br>

John</p>

[jose_rivera9]

<p>I have and use the Nikkor 60 f/2.8 D. It does a great job. I was able to purchased a very good used lense for about $280 at Adorama. I haven't used the 60 F/2.8 G but the D version is great.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Which Nikon DSLR do you have? If it is a DX body, there is also a 40mm/f2.8 DX macro, but generally speaking, I prefer longer ones for flowers, etc.</p>

[johncox]

<p>It will be going on a d800E</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>If botany includes the whole plants, including big ones, a 60/2.8 should be my choice.</p>

<p>If mostly flowers and small plants, no doubt I`d get a 105. Think that with a narrower taking angle you can put your setup at a longer distance, and will be easier to "place" your subject in relation to the background area.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>+1 for a longer focal length; at least 90-100mm. I'm very impressed with the Sigma 150/2.8 macro on FX. A used lens is a good way to go, as true macros tend to be high resolution and manual focus is the preferred method anyway.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>John, for flower blossoms on an FX camera, I would use a 105mm macro lens. I suggest you consider manual focus, especially since you are used to focusing the Bronica in macro. A 105mm f/4 AIS Micro-Nikkor would be well within your budget.</p>

<p>Another route would be the PB-4 with an enlarging lens in the 100mm range. This would give you some limited tilt-shift.</p>

<p>And, have you considered focus-stacking? I think it's a miracle tool for managing DOF and avoiding diffraction in macro work. I use Helicon Focus.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I've been pretty happy with my 90mm Tamron, although only on a D700 thus far. I believe the 100mm Tokina and 105mm Sigma are both well-regarded. I'm very tempted by the 150mm Sigmas, but they're a lot more expensive - my interest is partly because they look almost apochromatic, and I hate LoCA (the Tamron is sharp, but does fringe if you try very hard). To me, the 105mm VR Nikkor is too expensive for what it offers - this is a case where every review I've seen says that there's no problem going off-brand.<br />

<br />

But then I've valued working distance, because I occasionally snap fauna (although the Tamron front element is spectacularly far back from the physical front of the lens - you'd really have to try to need the hood) and I wanted it to double as a short portrait lens. If you want a 60mm field of view, I've only heard good things about the Nikkor. Good luck.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You can also get a SLAMMIN' deal on a 55mm f3.5 or f2.8. Manual focus. no metering on Nikon bodies below the D7000, but for flowers, you don't need it. You have live view for accurate focus (although the focus dot works fine for me) and you use the histogram for metering.</p>

<p>For anything that moves, it's not a good solution, but for plants? It's AWESOME!</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Oops... I was going to add... you can probably get a MF 105mm AI AND the 55 I just mentioned both for under 600 bucks.</p>

[chriscourt]

<p>I have a lot of macro lenses, and my current favorite is the Nikon 60mm AF-S. It's razor sharp, lightweight, distortion free, reasonably priced and it AFs fast and reliably enough to use as a standard lens as well (unlike certain other macros). 60mm is a fine focal length for things that don't move - products, flowers etc.</p>

<p>As an alternative to what has been suggested so far, and since you mention a desire for a tilt shift, how about looking for a copy of the original 85mm PC micro? Again, a super-sharp lens, and beautifully built, however it only goes to 1:2 by itself. I don't know what the going price is these days, but I picked mine up within your stated budget.</p>

<p>It's hard to go wrong with macro lenses. Remember that you can get amazing deals on older, manual focus versions, which don't really have any other downside over the new AF glass.</p>

<p>Good luck!<br>

Chris</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Like Chris, I have several macro lenses. For a long time I had the 105mm/f2.8 AF, pre D and 200mm/f4 AF-D. Last year I added AF-S versions of the 105 and 60. I also tested the 40mm DX, which is an excellent lens for $280.</p>

<p>Since the OP is getting a D800E, I hope he eventually has the budget to get a couple of macro lenses. When I tested the D3X back in 2009, I captured a lot of flower macros at the UCSC (University of California, Santa Cruz) Aboretum. I mainly used the 200mm/f4 AF-D on a tripod. That lens has a tripod collar, which is a major plus: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=911280">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=911280</a><br>

However, that lens is way over $1000, and some people expect it to have an AF-S update since the other Nikon macros are all AF-S now (except for the PC-E ones, of course).</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p><strong>"However, that lens is way over $1000"</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>I just don't understand why someone is willing to pay 3Ks for a camera but just 600 USD for a lens...... If that was me, I would pay 600 USD for a used camera and get the best lens I can for it....... <br>

In other words, why buy a Ferrari if you can only afford to pay for diesel?????<br>

I'm sorry...... this is just the way I think......<br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

[charles_swanson1]

<p>Unless you really need true MACRO, don't forget the simple answer. 70-200mm f4-5.6. Beautiful results with gorgeous OOF backgrounds. I have used everything suggested and they are all good options, but the photos I like best are from my AF 70-210 f4-5.6. I also have the 70-210 F4 and a 200 AI-S F4. Yes, I also have a Micro-Nikkor 55 and an AF 35mm F2. Still, after using them all, if I'm headed out for plants and flowers, I grab my AF 70-210 f4-5.6. Maybe it's just me. Idk.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I just don't understand why someone is willing to pay 3Ks for a camera but just 600 USD for a lens......</em></p>

<p>The 60mm AF-S Micro is optically excellent so it's not a question of making a compromise. Working distance can be an issue, though, depending on the subject. The OP said <em>"I would also rather not spend a whole lot so I can save up for a nice tilt shift PC Nikkor"</em> so he's not averse to spending money on what he thinks is the best lens for the application (assuming that he's talking about one of the PC-E Micro Nikkors).</p>

<p><em>In other words, why buy a Ferrari if you can only afford to pay for diesel?????</em></p>

<p>A Ferrari doesn't run on diesel fuel at all, whereas I don't think there is any doubt that D800E + 60 AF-S will give excellent image quality.</p>

<p>In the OP's position I would get the 105 AF-S Micro - the intermediate focal length macro lenses are in my opinion the easiest to use for flowers. The 200mm can make it difficult to photograph from directly above the subject, which may at times be necessary, and the 60mm is difficult to use for photographing really small objects (1:1) in field conditions due to its working distance (you need to position the lens really close to the subject). The 105 is the most versatile. My most used macro lens is the 85 PC-E, but it would not be the first I buy if I were starting from scratch. And the 1:2 limit of that lens is annoying. It's good to have something that lets you focus a bit closer when required. The 60mm also can be used, but it places greater demands on the positioning device (tripod + focusing rail setup) as you may frequently need to go very close to the subjects and field conditions often do not let the tripod legs to be positioned where you might want them). Also, the 60mm can show a lot of the environment so if you want a clean background the longer lenses let you achieve that more easily. With the 200mm it can be difficult to photograph a whole plant or group of plants and show the environment so it's a more specialized lens for really small subjects (1:2 to 1:1 is the range I often pick up the 200mm for - for larger subjects I can usually use the shorter macros that offer a greater range of useable apertures as well as tilt).</p>

[johncox]

<p>Is the older AF-D version of the 105 2.8 the same optics as the current af-s vr or will I need to spend more to get the good optics? If its all the same (Chris you mentioned there might be some similarities in macro lenses) I would probably pull the trigger almost immediately.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon uses optical elements to achieve vibration reduction. Therefore, any lens with VR is going to be optically different from the previous non VR version (with the same focal length and maximum aperture). Usually the VR version has more elements.</p>

<p>I happen to have both the 105mm/f2.8 AF and 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, as I mentioned earlier.</p>

<P>

The old 105mm/f2.8 AF or AF-D should still be fine. While the OP's budget for this lens is $600 at the moment, he can always add more lenses later on. If one is serious enough to get a D800E, I would imagine just one or even two macro lenses will not be enough. Each focal length serves a different purpose.

</P>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I have the older 105mm f2.8 AF D macro lens as well as the 200mm f 4.0 AF D and a 55mm f 2.8 manual focus macro, all Nikon. I use the 200mm the most, about 85% of the time because it has a tripod collar mount and its greater working distance. I use all three with Nikon and Promaster extension tubes, the latter are "electronic" while the Nikon are not.<br>

I rarely if ever use AF when taking macro shots.<br>

I have no plans to buy the Nikon 105mm VR macro lens because VR offers no benefit for me when taking macro shots. The Nikon lens manual tells you that “ As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x, the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease.” And if you use the lens on a tripod, which I do all the time, the manual tells you to switch off VR. Plus it is a G lens and the use of Nikon extension tubes are not an option per the manual, sec 14. If you plan to use the lens with a monopod, you can leave VR on.<br>

If you like a lens around 105mm, consider the older Nikon 105mm f 2.8 AF D or an even older AIS version, or the Sigma 150mm f2.8 which has a tripod collar mount. If you do not need IS or VR get the discontinued version of the Sigma 150mm.<br>

If you can find it get a used Nikon PN-11 tube, a 52mm extension tube that comes with a tripod collar mount. This is my most used macro extension tube.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>I don`t have the 105 AFD version so I cannot speak, but the AFS... I`d say the AFS doesn`t need to be better than any other Micro Nikkor for macro work just because it`s the latest or the most expensive (as it use to happen with most lenses).</p>

<p>The AFS is better as a general purpose lens, good for everything (here it shines, with good AF and VR) but maybe not <em>the best</em> as a macro specialist<em> in the closest range</em>. If you are looking for the highest available 1:2 or 1:1 performance there are other lenses that will do it better (although very slightly, that`s my guess).</p>

<p>I don`t think you need that macro specialist but a more versatile lens like the AFS (botany, isn`t it?). Maybe you strictly want to take macro images (pistils, smallest specimens), in this case I`d opt for a MF Micro Nikkor with their "classic" macro capabilities. Here, I think with a few exceptions, shorter focal lenghts could give you better performance.</p>

<p>I haven`t used that Sigma 150 but looks very tempting, maybe a bit too long to my taste (for the mentioned purpose).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Is the older AF-D version of the 105 2.8 the same optics as the current af-s vr or will I need to spend more to get the good optics?</em></p>

<p>The AF-S version has improved rendition of out of focus areas (smoother blur) than the AF and AF D, it is easier to focus both manually (greater precision in the MF ring) as well as with AF, produces images with very lively colours, however the sharpness in the macro range is not as <em>consistent</em> as the AF and AF D version. I happen to like the AF-S quite a lot, but it has its quirks. For the best consistency of sharpness across distances, apertures and across the frame, the 100mm Zeiss Makro Planar is better (or if you want an aprochromatic lens, the Voigtländer 125mm APO Lanthar) ... but they cost a lot of money; you could get an 85 PC-E for less. I have eight macro lenses and in my opinion the 105 AF-S is a fine lens that yields pleasing, balanced images even if it doesn't have the very best sharpness in the macro range. In practical work I'm rarely disappointed with it. The 60 AF-S on the other hand yields consistent, impeccable quality even at 1:1 at the widest apertures but it can be difficult to use and getting the light to the subjects can be an issue from 1:2 to 1:1.</p>

<p>If you want to save money the 105 AF or AF D would be very good macro lenses but with the caveat that their longer distance sharpness at wide apertures is not that good. Also, the focus precision is not good. So if you want to use it for portraits or landscape then you may need to stop down to f/5.6-f/11. If it is exclusively for close-up work then the only drawback is that they are extremely finicky to focus using the focusing ring and the slightest of touch of the ring can bring the focus significantly off. This means in practice for close work you may need to stop down to f/11 to be sure you got it in focus (with the D800E these concerns are especially present). I recommend the use of a focusing rail with the AF D 105 Micro to facilitate precise focusing. The AF-S 105 is easier in this respect, but still not as easy as the traditional manual focus Micro Nikkors. The focus precision was a key reason why I traded my 105 AF D into the AF-S. The 105 AF-S has ED glass and a nano coated element leading to vivid colours - with this lens it's very obvious in the images. Also it has internal focus and thus is less vulnerable to impact damage as the outer barrel protects the lens (the front does not extend as you focus closer). The AF and AF D 105 Micros extend considerably as you focus closer, and there is some wobble (lateral play). Thus I would pay attention to the mechanical condition of the lens if buying used. It's easy to hit the front into something when working in macro range with a tripod. I wouldn't worry too much about it though.</p>

<p>I haven't personally used the manual focus 105/2.8. Advantages would be probably a bit higher sharpness in macro work than the autofocus versions (e.g. according to ColorFoto tests this lens is significantly better at 1:2 than the AF/AF-D) but it only goes to 1:2 without tubes. Manual focusing in macro work is easier with a true manual focus lens, of course, but the AF-S 105 is not bad. Having a focusing rail evens out the field and takes this out of the consideration.</p>

<p>I would get an aspherical ball head for macro work, such as the Arca Z1 sp which I use. Also a custom L bracket (I use RRS) helps with doing vertical shots and makes a considerable improvement in stability. These cost money but they're very helpful especially for close-up and architectural work.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Firstly: A definite <strong>no</strong> to the 85mm + extension tubes. Otherwise +1 to the Tamron 90mm SP, and another +1 to the suggestion to get a 55mm f/3.5 or f/2.8 MF (plus you'll need a PK13 for 1:1). You could probably pick up a good used 55mm Micro-Nikkor as well as a new Tamron within your budget. The PK-13 might take you a few dollars over though.</p>

<p>I have both the Tamron 90mm and a 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Both are impeccable performers on my D700. AF isn't usually a big deal for macro, although servo continuous focus can be useful if the subject is moving slightly - such as wind-blown flowers.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I should point out that Bjorn Rorslett really dislikes the 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR macro, e.g. <a href="00Uom7">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Uom7</a></p>

<p>Before I bought mine last year, I checked with a friend who is a biologist and macro specialist. She thought that lens was fine and I bought one. I still haven't compared it carefully with the old version yet.</p>

[yuri_huta]

<p>For less than half of your $600 budget why not get the Bronica - Nikon adapter and a Bronica ETR 100mm f/4 macro?</p>

<p>Alternatively, consider a little more for your budget and scour for a PC Micro-NIKKOR<br /> 85mm f/2.8D (which gets you to half life size without any tubes). This is an older lens - since replaced by a PC-E version (adds nano crystal coating).</p>

<p>I've missed out on a couple of these that were $900-1000, yes more than your budget, but you wold get your architecture lens and a macro lens in one.</p>