macrophoto choices

[skip_wilson]

<p>My last question here is what people feel about comparison of the Nikkor 40/2.8 macro and the Nikkor 60/2.8 macro? Does the 60/2.8 offer that much more above the 40/2.8 with its increased cost? The shooting distance is 2+ inches more for the 60 but is it that much better for macro shooting and for using for portraits, too? I'm figuring on buying one of these two lenses for mainly macro (mainly flowers, but some bugs) and need some help. Thanks Skip</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The problem with the 40, Skip, is how close it has to be to the subject when you focus at minimum. Too close to light it easily or well, in fact.</p>

<p>This is why 60 or even 90 or 105 are more useful on DX, imho. For the same reason that, quite honestly, the 55mm and 60mm are very limited on FX.</p>

<p>That said, for things like shooting flat art and such, the 40mm on DX or 55mm on DX/FX are wonderful.</p>

<p>It entirely depends on what you're doing with it. I feel the 40mm is close to worthless actually. But ymmv, of course.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The main benefit I have with 'short' macros ~40>60mm is for looking up into flower heads quite close to the ground or up into the gills of fungi. To some extent this is overcome with my D5300's tilting screen and Live-View for composition. You can't physically get a 105mm in the space, never mind reach the minimum focus. Sometimes too much reach can be a real problem.</p>

<p>For chasing Dragonflies I often use a 300mm AFS with an extension tube. I've tried it with a 1.4x TC but the added focal length just pushes the requires hand-held shutter speed up.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Adorama say Nikon's PK tubes don't<strong><em> fit</em></strong> on G lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it's true....well kinda. They do fit, physically, but they don't work...:-)</p>

<p>But Kenko's DG set do and work very well. They have all of the electronic contacts as pass-throughs, so the camera doesn't really know they're there.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>> My last question here is what people feel about comparison of the Nikkor 40/2.8 macro and the Nikkor 60/2.8 macro? Does the 60/2.8 offer that much more above the 40/2.8 with its increased cost? The shooting distance is 2+ inches more for the 60 but is it that much better for macro shooting and for using for portraits, too? <br>

The 40/2.8 is DX only, and the working distance is even shorter. Short macros include a wider area of the background in the frame, which gets relatively less blurred, so you get an impression of more depth than there is DoF. The extreme effect of this is the macro modes of compact cameras at wide-angle; but there are no really-wide-angle 1:1 macro lenses, you can only workaround using a conventional wide-angle lens on a thin extension tube (but the achievable magnification at a still workable working distance depends on the lens). <br>

With long macros, the included part of the background is small, relatively heavily blurred, and you may be able pick a clean part of it, and the working distance is more generous. But they are expensive, heavy, and the technique gets more challenging. You can workaround using a relatively weak diopter achromat on your 70-200 (Marumi +3, Canon 500D...). A thicker extension tube may work too instead of the achromat; or a 2x teleconverter. <br>

For budget macro/portrait I'd recommend Tamron 90/2.8 non-VC (cheaper than the more recent VC) or 60/2 (DX) - both happen to have the working distance at 1:1 around 10 cm. </p>

[skip_wilson]

<p>My last question in trying to narrow a purchase down is how people feel about the Nikkor micro 60/2.8 vs Nikkor micro 85/3.5 . Again, my main use would be for macro( shooting flowers and occasionally bugs), but also having it available as a relatively fast prime for occasional portrait shots of grandkids and family members. Should the loss of one stop of light with the 85/3.5 dissuade me from using it for macro work vs the 60/2.8? Is the extra working space distance with the 85/ 3.5 something that would sway one to get that lens over the 60/2.8? Does the VR on the 3.5 add that much working with macro? It normally wouldn't be turned on with a tripod in macro use but would be useful if handheld. Does the 85/3.5 have much going for it when used for portrait work? The focal length is a bit long for that and I hear the bokeh suffers compared to the 60/2.8. What are peoples' thoughts? I'm getting close in my decision between these two lenses. Thanks Skip</p>

[5711]

<p>a friend of mine got pregnant and i decided to take her job as a clinical photographer for one year...that was a bad decision as i feel my life is flying by and 12 hours a day are wasted, but i had to switch to mac and partly canon too.<br>

however, i take macro shots all day.<br /> all day long...operations..blood...bone..screws...saws...you name it.<br>

<br /> i use a 1dx and a 100 f2.8L macro with ring flash mr 14 ex</p>

<p>i use autofocus.<br /> always</p>

<p>prefocus<br /> autofocus on seletced point...reframe - shoot.</p>

<p>ppl who say auto focus on macro lenses is useless, are useless.</p>

<p>you will eventually end up doing mf only very very often..but to avoid af just because..is wrong.</p>

<p> </p>

[roger_rowlett1]

I think you will want more working distance outdoors

than you will get with a 60 mm micro lens. I have an 85

DX and it is the shortest lens I would use for nature

macro. A 2 element achromat on a tele lens is a good

alternative and make a great field macro when you don't

want to carry another lens. Marumi sells them in all

filter sizes. A 3 diopter lens will get you about 1X at

200 mm and about 1.4X at 300 mm. (In practice a little

less at close focus). It's not as good as a macro lens

but still very good. Working distance is phenomenal, 1-2

feet depending on focal length.