Suggestions for good macro lens

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"I want to be able to photgraph the details of an object (ie the point of a ball point pen or images in a water droplet). Can anyone suggest a good lens for this type of photography?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I need to take photos of subjects as small as those you described, I use a 28mm wide-angle lens mounted in reverse position on a bellows. This allows me to obtain photos with a reproduction ratio of 8:1.</p>

<p>However, as others have said, I also recommend that you first practice with subjects that are not so small.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

[orcama60]

<p>I agree that Tokina 100 is a pretty good lens. I do have the Nikon 105 f/2.8 and it is also a great choice but more expensive. But my preferable lens to shoot insects, is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8. The reason is that I can be far away from my subject ( insects ) and still be able to capture them. If you get too close, they will fly away. <br>

In my opinion, forget about any other lens that is not at least 100 mm focal length because what is the point to have for example the Nikon 40mm to shoot flowers if you can do the same with a Tokina 100mm ? Beside, with the Nikon 40mm, you will not be able to shoot insects cause you would have to get too close and obviously they will fly away.<br>

Here is a shot taken with my Sigma 150mm ( the new version has VR, just in case ). Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Autofocus, in all honestly, in macro is not all that good an idea. The depth of field is often so shallow that if the lens focuses on something 0.5 mm from your intended subject it could ruin the image. Manual focusing is, in my opinion, ALWAYS preferable to autofocus.</p>

<p>With that said, the 55mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkor is one of the finest macro (Micro) lenses ever made by <em>anyone</em>. It requires a PK-13 extension tube to get to 1:1, but they are cheap. Ones can be had on Fleabay for $125 and a PK-13 for another $25. It is also a superb "walking around lens" if you do not need a larger maximum aperture.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<blockquote>

<p>Jos writes:<br>

Most macro lenses go to a magnification of 1:1, meaning that the image on the sensor will be the same size as your subject (on full frame, on your camera you even get a 1.5 magnification).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is <em>incorrect</em>. A 1:1 magnification on the film plane or sensor is <em>independent</em> of film or sensor size. It simply means that the size of the subject is the same on both sides of the lens. There is no additional magnification regardless of the size of the film or sensor. What you may be thinking of is the <em>apparent</em> increase in magnification you get with DX over FX, not an <em>actual</em> increase</p>