Macro shots. Help me understand the difference between these 2 FLs.

[jcuknz]

<p><em>I actually started the topic to help me choose the right lens</em><br>

For awhile I thought I had gone off topic through misunderstanding your query but now I realise I gave you an option of an alternative to getting any macro lens and I certainly wouldn't get a short macro such as 60 and dubious about 90/100 from my experience. It may be nice to have one lens which works from infinity to I:I but not the way I would go. <br>

A CU lens is hardly another lens with regard to weight, I carry five lens/filters in a folder in the outside pocket of my camera case and its use avoids having to expose the sensor to dusty atmosphere when changing lenses now I have MFT ... modern convienience versus oldtime function just as good with regard to getting the shot.<br>

I am a fan of the single lens instead of the dam fool lens changing carry-on that DSLR owners indulge in ... with MFT I have a larger sensor bridge camera with the 14-140 lens effectively with the advantage I can use extension tubes/bellows with it if I ever wanted to but for 'daily use' the 2 dioptre/4 dioptre meets my requirements. I have largely unused filters in the pack but the dioptre get used frequently.<br>

But sadly DSLR owners spend their life wondering what extra lens they need to buy ... good for Canikon but not their bank balance :-)<br>

And missing shots as they change their lenses around :-)</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>I doubt if I have I:I with my current set-up now have I had it for the past decade as I simply do not need it for the general tight frame shot I love to take. But now I have 'standardised on an ILC I can use my extension tubes and bellows from film days to get 1:1 and beyond [ x9 with one set-up, a 25mm lens reversed at full extension of my bellows on a full frame 35mm camera in bygone days, 4mm of subject filling the 36mm frame width ]<br>

Except for focusing you do not need a fast lens and [probably since there are compromises in lens design the fast lens will be less good at 'macro apertures' becuase it is slanted towards being fast. Despite the problems involved [diffraction] which are usually more percived than real of more advantage would be does the lens close down to merely f/16 or better f/22 or f/32 which the longer lens is more likely to do and when used for tight framing that could result in f/40's and some.<br>

So my question would be "do you really want 1:1 or is it just some vague idea based on theory rather than practical experience" Not wishing to be rude but that really is the guts of the situation..... happy thinking out of your problem :-)</p>

[frode]

<blockquote>

<p>One last thing. Do you guys think having a larger aperture, like f/2, would be beneficial at all for macro photography versus an aperture of f/2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Macro/close-up is usually all about smaller apertures in order to increase DOF so you have at least something in focus. Remember though that before you take the picture, you look through the lens at its largest aperture. Larger aperture means more light which in turn makes it easier to see if you have correct focus. On the other hand, the difference between 2 and 2.8 is not huge...<br /><br />I myself have two macros, one 100/2.8 and one 35/2.8. I use both. They make pretty different pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I simply do not want to carry more than 1 lens, but at the same time would not want to lose a shot.</p>

</blockquote>

 

I'm not sure whether this requirement is possible to fulfill...

 

<p>;-)<br>

Regards</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Understood, Allan - and I'm glad you think I'm helping!<br />

<br />

Macro lenses are sometimes a bit less sharp at longer distances than they are in the macro range (according to some tests in LensRentals, and possibly my own experience with my 150mm Sigma) - but then they're typically <i>very</i> good at macro range, so I wouldn't lose sleep over this. I can vouch that a long macro is a very useful thing in terms of staying away from the subject; my 90mm is rarely used now I have the 150mm (although I've had the problem of wanting, unexpectedly, to shoot straight down onto a table - the working distance suddenly became a problem). However, there's also a price jump between the 90-105mm macros and the 150-180mm ones; less so with the stabilized versions of the 90-105mm range, but the original 90mm Tamron is appreciably cheaper than my 150mm Sigma was, and the 200mm Nikkor is another step up.<br />

<br />

If you've only got one lens to walk around with, I'd really suggest taking a zoom! My strategy of giving up on my 28-200 and using only the 90mm was a result of desperation, not planning.<br />

<br />

I agree with the strategy of trying to complement the lenses you've got, however. Given that you already have an 85 f/1.8, that does suggest that a 90mm macro might be a bit redundant. (I have an 85mm as well, but I got the macro first and I specifically wanted f/1.4.) Getting a 60mm would be less of a duplication, and arguably the f/2 lens is more of a general-purpose lens... but maybe it's not so different from a 50mm, and a 50mm f/1.8 is not typically an expensive proposition.<br />

<br />

Given the choice, maybe veer away from the Tamron and look at the longer options in the 90-105 range? I got my 90mm Tamron because the other fast(ish) lenses I had at the time were a 50mm and a 135mm - 90 split the difference, whereas going longer was a bit one-sided. Going Sigma or Nikkor (you have a D7000, yes?) might be less redundant, though the latest stabilized ones have a premium. I'd check some reviews (at least Photozone's) on whether you think the 60mm f/2 is worth the money for use at f/2 - I don't have a crop body, and can't vouch for this lens personally; if it's not a substitute for a 50 f/1.8, maybe trying to fill that focal length with this lens doesn't help (and a 50mm f/1.8 is cheapish and lightish enough that carrying one alongside the macro may not be a trial). But, especially on a crop body, maybe 105mm is a bit long for, say, portraiture (not that anything stops me from using my 150mm or 200mm on FX for candid portraits). I chose the 150mm because it was the longest f/2.8 macro I could find, and it was a viable apochromatic portrait lens that was easier to carry than a 200 f/2; at the time, f/3.5 or f/4 for a longer lens didn't appeal. Now there's a 180mm f/2.8 macro from Sigma, but it's awfully pricey.<br />

<br />

Essentially, I feel your dilemma. As JC says, shorter macros are a curse unless you really want them (or lying on the ground is your idea of fun); close-up lenses would be the budget solution. If you're after insects, I'd suggest that the 60mm is going to be a problem and you should get the longest macro you can afford; if you're after plants (that don't run away), this may be less of a problem, at least if your knees are more flexible than mine, but you'll also probably have time to screw in a dioptre.<br />

<br />

It's at times like this that the 70-180 micro-Nikkor starts to come into conversations. It's not cheap, though. (Although it <i>is</i> slightly cheaper than I remembered... maybe I should add it to my "saving up" list.)<br />

<br />

Any chance you can live with manual focus? (Do you do macro "properly" with a tripod, or wing it like I do with a fast shutter speed?) The 55mm micro-Nikkor (if 2:1 is good enough) is very well-regarded and cheap, and I could believe that the <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00GusZ">200 f/4 AI-S</a> might be worth a look.<br />

<br />

At this point, I'm well out of my expertise range, and just wittering, so I'll shut up. I hope that's some more ideas to think about. Can you tell us more about what other lenses you have around the normal range and in the 100mm+ range? That might suggest an obvious hole to plug with a macro, but I suspect it'll come down to your preferences.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Thought of another angle ... that you don't want to carry more than one lens on the camera .... does this mean that you don't want to carry a tripod .... therefore stabilisation becomes a factor ... do any of these macros come with stabilisation .... I don't know and not sufficiently interested to do a check at dpreview .... but what I DO know is that stabilation in my camera lens continues to work as normal whatever I put on the front of it ... close-up lens or telephoto adaptor.<br>

Photography is an endless compromise between various factors and there are no magic bullets only pretty good solutions.</p>

 

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>"... like Im on a short 1-day trip and Im only with that macro lens. Could I use it for other stuff besides macro in that case?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Definitely. Done that many a time for landscapes and portraits.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>JC - some of the more expensive macro lenses (the latest version of the 90mm Tamron, the latest 105mm Sigma and Nikkor, the latest 150mm Sigma) are stabilized. However, this is decreasingly useful at macro distances, since the stabilization that they support is primarily about compensating for lens rotation (the camera tilting), and does nothing for the camera moving in the film plane. The camera shifting by 2mm does very little when shooting something 10m away, but quite a lot if you're only 10cm away. Canon's latest 100mm macro does have an additional stabilization mode to handle this case.<br />

<br />

Which isn't to say that you can't shoot macro by hand - most of my macro shots don't use a tripod, though I'd certainly use one for anything critical (or if I wanted to do something like focus stacking). For flowers in the field, I just rely on steadying myself and a short shutter speed - besides, I have to worry about flowers blowing in the wind.</p>

[allan_martin]

<p>Andrew, regarding my other lenses, here it goes:<br /><br />17-50mm 2.8: my main all-rouder. Replaced the 18-105 from kit.<br /> 85mm 1.8: nice and creamy bokehs.<br /> 35mm 1.8: 2nd all-rounder.<br /> 10-20mm: cool wide angle for landscapes and architecture.<br /> 70-300mm: cool standard long-range zoom for unreachable wildlife, mainly.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Andrew .... Allan is talking of using it as a GP lens ... the only time I remember using a tripod was for a flash illuminated shot at home at night :-) Perhaps we should suggest to him the use of a monopod which doubles up as a walking stick or as my wife uses, a ski-pole with the 20x1/4 thread I added for her but she never uses :-)<br>

Side note I am sure my GH with its 14-140 is no bigger than the kit lens he traded in and gives me 28-280mm AoV :-) I wonder how often he uses f/1.8. I survive with f/4-f/5.8 this is the digital age and IMO fast lenses are not really need :-) But each to their own.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Though if Paasonic came out with the equivalent of their FZ200's constant f/2.8 25-640 lens for MFT I would be interested if I could afford it but I guess the transition with quality from a 9mm sensor up to 17mm sensor is quite a big step ... though I would be happy with just a 35-600mm AoV range instead of wasting zoom on giving me 25 or 28 AoV :-)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks, Allan. Just so we know what we're replicating!<br />

<br />

I would suggest that the gap between 50mm and 60mm is small enough that you might not find yourself using a 60mm f/2.8 macro much when you have the zoom available. Admittedly the Tamron 60mm f/2 has an aperture advantage... my understanding is that it's not all that good at f/2, but I don't speak from experience.<br />

<br />

I would find a longer macro in general to be useful. I also find longer, faster lenses to be more useful, since they do a better job of isolating the background and a shorter shutter speed is - at least for camera shake - more critical in a longer lens.<br />

<br />

The 90mm is a bit close to your 85mm in terms of redundancy. That makes me think you might want to err towards the 105mm end of the macro selection in that price bracket - if you can stretch to them - or bite the bullet and go for the 150mm Sigma when you can afford it. That's a stop (possibly more) faster than the 70-300, giving much better subject separation, and has a usefully long working distance. But it's more expensive.<br />

<br />

Which I guess means deciding how urgently you want one...</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>There used to be lots of PN enthusiasts for this macro lens. Haven't heard from them lately, perhaps they have all gone AF. I got one for a song, and love it.<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00HsSA?start=10</p>

 

[allan_martin]

<p>Thanks for every bit of help guys!</p>

<p>I ended up finding a 99% new sigma 105mm 2.8 OS, IF, which is roughly 300$ cheaper than nikon 105mm.<br>

I took a look at the 150mm one but it's just too big. <br /><br />Think that's it, I'll go with the sigma 105. Read some stellar reviews about it too!</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I am quite sure getting a two or four dioptre for the 70-300 would have been a lot cheaper, lot less bulk to carry, and equally efficient even if what you got was $300 cheaper than the Nikon product ... to me it demonstrates the difference in thinking between the DSLR user and the rest of us ... people who change lenses at the drop of the hat and others who avoid or don't/cannot. Some might call it a cultural divide :-)<br>

The long lens helps to both get 'unreachable wildlife' in the distance and those up close :-)</p>

[allan_martin]

<p>JC, but that wouldnt allow me to get 1:1 shots...</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>OH DEAR! This preoccupation with double extension!<br>

When a four dioptre would get you bigger and since I imagine the lens in question has a 58mm mount [? or is it 67mm] the price would be closer to $25 than $144 .. [it is ... just checked B&H]<br>

My 430mm AoV lens gets me a 19mm subject filling the sensor with a 4d lens ... you have 480 AoV so since your sensor is 22mm across that is more than double extension ... LOL<br>

DE is a near impossibility with a P&S or bridge camera but not with APS-C .. Actually I should revise my opinions becuase I suspect it quite possible with the latest super-zoom models such as Panasonic FZ70 with its 1000 AoV lens where the whole rig is about US$350.</p>

 

[gungajim]

<p>This thread has given me a host of new things to worry about :-) Here is the message I saw when I saw when I started to post my comment. Mr. or Ms. Moderator isn't taking their job too seriously![To make sure that the questions are appropriate and the responses given in the spirit of real assistance, the Beginner's forum is much more tightly moderated than other Photo.net forums.]</p>

[allan_martin]

<p>Alright, unfortunately the sigma 105mm I was looking into buying was for Canon, yeah, pretty bad.</p>

<p>So now I really have to choose which budget range I should stick to:</p>

<p>$500 range with old tamron 90mm or tokina 100mm<br /> or<br /> $750 range with sigma 105mm or new tamron 90mm.<br>

Im not sure if those are worth $250 more over the old tammy/tokina.<br>

Ideas?</p>

<p>ps: Should I create a new topic for this?</p>