Close-up Photography

[joe_cormier]

<p>My wife owns a Nikon D-300s with various (good) Dx lenses. She is now interested in close-up photography. In your opinion,<br>

which would be a better choice, extension tubes or a close-up lens. She is an excellent photographer so she would be concerned with sharpness,D.O.F. etc. <br>

As always, Thanks in Advance<br>

Joe</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

A macro lens is always the better choice if you can afford it. I've had a Sigma 105mm macro for years that takes stunningly sharp images.

A tripod is a must. DOF will always be very shallow with true macro photography. Keep as much of your subject on the same plane as

you can, because that's what will be in focus.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Definitely get a dedicate macro lens. Nikon has two macro lenses just for DX if she needs that. Prices vary from very affordable to quite expensive.</p>

<p>Nikon extension tubes have a lot of limitations. E.g., Nikon tubes have no electronic contacts.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Joe ;</p>

<p>Recently I bought the Nikkor 60mm. 2.8 macro and I love it. I have used extension tubes in the past and they do not compare. You have to get a bit closer with the 60 than you do the 105 macro but the results are stunning.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>First choice is a dedicated macro lens, FX for added flexibility, if your budget allows it. Extension tubes are Ok too, but are a second choice. Extension tubes plus the macro lens can be a winning combination. Nikon extension tubes are not electronic, but will mate and transfer info to your wife's D 300s. All she will "lose" is AF. IMO that is not a big loss in that I almost never use AF for macro anyhow. Manual focusing is what you do most of the time for accurate focusing. If she gets a macro lens she can buy a set of three or start out with just one. If she gets one, I suggest she gets a long one, about 20++ mm. The longer the extension, the greater the magnification. A macro lens can also be used as a prime lens for general photography. Joe Smith</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I would recommend extension tubes over close-up lenses, but as previously mentioned, a dedicated macro lens is your best choice. Keep in mind that you can get very, very good results with extension tubes and they are extremely affordable.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The choice of focal length is usually based on a couple of factors..</p>

<p>A) Can your subject be scared away by too close an approach...ie bugs and small beasties....the longer the better (but camera shake is magnified too)</p>

<p>B) Do you need lots of room to get lighting onto your subject....longer is better too. But the longer it is, the more expensive it is.</p>

<p>C) Is angle of attack relevant? If you need to look up underneath something natural, maybe the gills of a mushroom or up into the throat of a small flower, the shorter ones are better and cheaper.</p>

<p>I <strong><em>love</em></strong> my DX Tamron 60mm f2...but I also have an FX Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR and an FX Tamron 180mm f3.5</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>A contrarian approach is to go with a manual macro lens. They're cheaper, good optically, and allow very precise focusing. Any Nikon AI(55mm, 105mm) or Nikon AI mount 90-105mm off-brand manual macro(Tamron, Kiron, Vivitar, etc)would work well.</p>

<p>Now discontinued Nikon close-up diopters are nice but limited to 52mm(3T&4T) or 62mm(5T&6T). The Canon 500D is 77mm. All these are double element lenses.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Dedicated macro lens (either auto or manual)...the best she can afford. I did it years ago and never looked back!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sorry, I guess I misread the original post. When the OP said "close-up lenses," I thought he meant macro lenses instead of diopters, which are like filters.</p>

<p>For example, the 40mm/f2.8 DX macro is only $280, new. It is very affordable, and it is a fine lens. Do pick the right focal length to fit the subject matter, though.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>joe, we need to know if your "close-up lens" is a separate "macro" lens or a plus diopter that is screwed into the front of the lens.<br>

In order of desirability in terms of image quality:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1 Macro lens like one of the "micro" Nikkors $$$<br>

2 Extension tubes $$<br>

3 plus diopters. $</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However the plus diopters are the easiest by far to use, followed by the dedicated macro lens.<br>

The image quality of the screw-in 'filters' is worse, but still can be surprisingly adequate if you're not too picky.</p>

[james_lai]

<p>Joe, if your wife has lenses with aperture rings she can also try a BR2A reversing ring, which allows any lens with a 52mm filter ring to be mounted backwards on the camera. This lets you get very close, and you focus by moving the camera (or subject) closer or farther apart. Lenses without aperture rings may be used too, but you'd be stuck at the smallest aperture and the viewfinder will be very dark. Officially, the older BR2 is not to be used on the newer cameras with electronic contacts in the mount, but I use a BR2 on my DSLRs with no problems. YMMV.</p>

[johnfarrar]

<p>Get a copy of John Shaw's 'Close Ups in Nature' (mine was £2 secondhand, best £2 I ever spent). It explains all the relationships between fl, dof, working distance, extension tubes, close-up lenses and macro lenses superbly - and also lighting. The posters above are quite right, good macro lenses are best for both image quality and ease of use; however the learning curve (and macro is a big learning curve) could start with a 2-element screw-on close-up lens like those C Watson has listed, before deciding which fl macro lens she needs. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What exactly does she want to take pictures of, and what's the budget?<br>

And especially for macro lenses, the 3rd party options contain a lot of great candidates for quite a lot less money than the Nikkors. But first thing first, as Shun said, you need to understand which focal length to get. Making a list of candidates within the budget next isn't too hard :-)</p>

[long_young]

<p>You can also look into close up Raynox 250 which can produce sharp photo. I have use it on my Nikon 60mm and 105 mm Micro. When using with raynox 250, your DOF is very shallow and usually shoot at f22 to f25 c/w flash.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>You could get an extension tube like the Nikon PN-11 and try out the lenses you have. Yes, you lose AF, but the focusing is SO thin, most people manual focus anyway. While it may not be TRUE "macro" photography if you use longer than a 50mm, you can get some cool really close-up shots with this extension ring and lenses in the 50mm to 100mm range. I used it with my 105mm and my 75-150mm. Once you get to longer lenses the magnification get less, but I've read that even the 180mm f2.8 and the PN-11 make some really good shots.</p>