Macro Lens Choices for Small Objects

[bob_mundell]

<p>I have a Nikon3200,and I need a lens for close ups of very small trout flies. Can anyone help me on what to purchase?</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>How small? Give us some idea of the magnification you need (that is, the linear dimension of the subject and how much of the frame it has to fill)?</p>

[SCL]

<p>The 105/2.8 AFD Micro Nikkor is the perfect lens for this job. To get best results you will want to use it on a tripod. I've had great results using mine with trout and panfish flies.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>It sounds like you need at least a 105mm macro lens. The 105mm/f2.8 AF/AF-D could be a good choice, most likely from a tripod and focus manually, as the D3200 cannot AF with any non AF-S (AF-I) lens.</p>

<p>There are also some other third-party alternatives and the more expensive Nikon 105mm/f2.8 AF-S macro, depending on your budget.</p>

[jon_shumpert2]

<p>Hi Bob. Nikon also makes an 85mm macro lens that costs much less than the 105mm. The advantage of the 105mm is that you get the same image magnification and don't have to be as close to the subject. The 105mm will also work on full frame cameras if you ever decide to buy one. Check out Nikonusa.com You can find information on both lenses. A third choice in the Nikon line-up, but one I probably wouldn't get, is the 40mm macro. It is the lowest price, but at its closest focus, you have only around 6 inches between the camera and what you are photographing. This could cause a problem with lighting the subject. The 85mm has a close up distance of .9feet and the 105 is 1ft. As Shun Cheung mentioned, there are several 3rd party choices such as Tamron and Sigma.</p>

[Two23]

<p>You don't really need to spend a pile of money to do what you want here. There are "close-up filter" (diopters) that will do the job. You need to see what the filter thread diameter is for your lens (such as 52mm) and then find an attachment that fits. Examples are a Nikon 4T or a Canon 500D. These have two glass elements and are very high quality. No, not quite as high quality as a dedicated macro lens, but these only cost about a hundred bucks or less. I agree a tripod is imporant here, but disagree you have to spend hundreds of dollars on a macro lens for this.</p>

<p>Now there's one thing to keep in mind. As you increase the magnification of the image, you lose depth of field. So, you might have trouble getting all of a three dimensional subject (your flies) in focus at once. For that, you will need some bright light so you can stop down to f11.<br>

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Nikon-Tseries-closeup-lenses-68725</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I've used a variety of manual exposure and manual focus lenses on a D3200, and the 105/2.8D does pretty nicely. </p>

<p>For macro on a tripod you don't need AF anyway. You can use Live View and manually focus with great precision on exactly what you want. The D3200 screen pixellates and gets jumpy at highest magnification, but you can easily zoom in a few steps and get it very sharp. </p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Bob,<br>

As you can see, there are quite some options (and even some more exotic not-yet-mentioned options like reversing lenses for extreme magnifications)... the point is more: what is your budget?<br>

The Nikon AF-S 105 f/2.8VR would make a fine choice, but it's not cheap; the 85mm f/3.5VR DX is more affordable, as are options as the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro. But without knowing how much you're willing to spend, those advices could still be well beyond what you hope to spend.<br>

So it'll help a lot if you indicate your budget, and how familiar you are with operating your DSLR (i.e. is manual exposure without metering an option, is manual focus OK etc.).</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I have both a 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor and a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP Macro (non-VC version). IMO the Nikon lens gives slightly inferior results in the outer frame area due to some field curvature - but that's hair splitting and only relevant for flat subjects. Both lenses are very good and on par with each other, but since the Tamron is a bit less expensive, that would be my recommendation. Although the deep recess of the Tamron front element does give slightly less clearance for lighting. However, for fishing-fly photography you'll probably want to use a ringlight or something fairly co-axial with the lens. Therefore subject clearance shouldn't be much of an issue.</p>

<p>Tokina also make a highly regarded 100mm macro lens that's reasonably priced, and Sigma also make a 105mm macro. I have no experience of either personally though.</p>

<p>All the above lenses will focus to lifesize 1:1 without the addition of extension tubes or bellows. That will give you a subject area of 16 x 24mm on your D3200. Good enough for any fishing fly and hook I would have thought.</p>

<p>P.S. You'll need a "G" type lens with a built-in focus motor for autofocus to work with the D3200, and that rules out the old 105mm AF-D Micro-Nikkor. Watch out for that if you consider buying a used lens. Although there's no reason why you shouldn't use manual focus for macro work. Most people doing macro switch to MF anyway.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I need a lens for close ups of very small trout flies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Trout flies are tiny, roughly the size of a finger nail: http://oregonflyfishingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Caddis-Fly-Shop-Jay-Nicholas-Cascade-Trout-Flies-08092011-b.jpg</p>

<p>We are talking about 1:1 macro to fill a significant part of the D3200's DX frame. That was why I think the earlier suggestion of the 105mm macro is appropriate. If fact, I would even prefer to use a 200mm macro lens if cost is not a concern. Jon and Wouter's suggestion of the 85mm/f3.5 DX AF-S VR macro is a a lot more affordable for a DX body.</P>

<P>

Currently, Nikon USA has a $500 package deal for a 85mm/f3.5 DX macro and a 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S together. That package price is cheaper than the usual price for the 85mm alone. You can probably sell the 35mm if you don't need it:</p>

<ul>

<li>Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/NK3518MPK.html</li>

<li>B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1192712-REG/nikon_13490_macro_portrait_2.html</li>

</ul>

<p>A couple of things to keep in mind:</p>

<ol>

<li>Near 1:1 macro is fairly extreme. The working distance from the front of the lens to the subject will be quite limited. Hence lighting it will be challenging as your lens can easily get in the way. At least in this case the subject is not something alive.</li>

<li>Unfortunately, close-up diopters won't work very well with such extreme close ups, unless you are totally undemanding on quality or are willing to photograph from farther away and just crop out a small part from your frame/image.</li>

</ol>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>An afterthought Bob. If you tell us what lens(es) you already have we can assess whether they might be suitable for use on extension tubes; with or without a reversing ring. Extension tubes would almost certainly be the most economical way to get the sort of magnification you're after.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Extension tubes or revering rings for a guy who is doing this with an entry-level DSLR?<br /><br />I don't think so. I don't even like them for someone who knows what they are doing unless you need to go greater than 1:1. I don't think the OP needs that.<br /><br /><strong>We need to know how you are using these photos how big you're going to use them.</strong> If you're not going really big, and can crop in, I would certainly stick with a 105, Tamron 90, or Nikkor 85. <br /><br />The good lighting and sturdy tripod you need are just as important.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Tiny trout flies #24, #16, #10 or a bit larger #6 with an in-built hook?<br>

What is the challenge is the combination of magnification AND depth of field to get the whole of the furry or feathered thing sharp enough. The same applies to living flies too.<br>

Going bigger than 1:1 i.e. the image on the sensor equals in size to the real thing, makes it extremely difficult to get the depth of field big enough. Trout flies can and often are very three dimensonal, not flat items.<br>

As flies built around a hook as not generally very shy, a shorter macro lens could be sufficient.<br>

Without any hassle with extension tubes or close-up diopters, I'd suggest to look at a AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 40mm f/2.8G - if there is the hook.</p>

<p>If the OP is asking an advise on photographing living items, then the situation is more varied. In any case support and light is needed.</p>

[pcassity]

<p>I have had (and sold) both the 60mm and 105mm Nikon Micro lens. Both were great. If I had it to do over again, I think I would have gone with the 200mm so that I wouldn't have to get so close to the subject. That's just me though.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Back in 2011, we had this thread on working distance for macro lenses, and I posted the settings for 1:1 for the Nikon 40mm DX macro, 105mm macro and 200mm macro. While the 40mm/f2.8 DX is a great lens for something below $300, you would only get a couple of inches of working distance at 1:1; essentially it is not practical: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZNW5</p>

<p>That was why a few of us suggested the 105mm macro to begin with. As Pat Cassity points out, the 200mm would have been even better. However, those lenses are expensive (a used 105mm non AF-S is perhaps fairly affordable). Otherwise, Nikon's 85mm/f3.5 DX seems to be an economical alternative along with some Tamron options.</p>

<p>It all boils down to how much the OP wants to spend and what kind of quality he requires.</p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Agreed that the 85 mm DX macro could be even better. I was suggesting a 40 mm lens based on functionality and cost.<br>

I'd say that the working distance is not the main factor. It depends, however. I made just a test with #12 fly with a spread out hacle (about the same size hook was in the link Shun gave). At 1:1 and at f11 left hand thumb leaning on the lens and camera at the right hand the working distance was 5cm / 2 inches (FX camera, micro nikkor 55mm Ai-s with a tube). The depth of field (DOF) was about right at f11.<br>

If a greater working distance is indeed needed compared to the 40 mm DX macro, then a 85 DX macro would be a good and balanced choice.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>You should also factor in the need for lighting, which is one of the key factors to macro photography. Because your lens will be stopped down to get extra DOF, you will have to 'manufacture' lighting. There are several ways to do that, but make sure you consider that factor. If you are shooting in a controlled environment, then you may want to consider a light box and lighting equipment.</p>

<p>Again, IF this is a controlled environment then what you are doing would be comparable to product photography. There are plenty of online articles about that. If you will be shooting your macros out in the field, you will still need lighting, but obviously different equipment versus indoor lighting.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>@ Peter Hann. Why scoff at the idea of using extension tubes Peter?<br>

Below is an example of what a cheap lens on a set of tubes can do. The tubes were "Kooka" brand that cost me around £50 UK (~$75 US). The lens used was the cheapest one I own; a 35-80mm f/4-5.6 AF-D Zoom Nikkor. A plasticky and old kit lens that I recently bought for £5 at a boot fair. AF struggled admittedly, but MF focussing was fairly sure and easy using Live View. The lens and tube combination were no more difficult to use than a dedicated macro lens in MF mode.</p>

<p>I was amazed at the quality this lens delivered. All three extension tubes were added to the lens and at the 80mm zoom setting it achieved almost exactly 1:1 magnification with a subject relief of around 2.5". Aperture used was f/11 and lighting came from a CLS triggered speedlight off camera. The inset is a 100% crop from a 24Mp D7200 image. OK, so the crop doesn't look overly sharp, but it's about as good as can be expected considering the magnification and effective aperture.<br>

BTW, the image is of part of a UK postage stamp showing a scene from "Wind in the Willows".</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Rodeo Joe. For a LITTLE more money, if you're shooting static objects with macro where AF is useless and even metering is not totally necessary, I'd rather have (and in fact do still have) the Nikon 55mm f3.5 or f2.8 macro lens. Better investment than extension tubes on a zoom lens imho.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>it achieved almost exactly 1:1 magnification with a subject relief of around 2.5"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That is precisely what I would like to avoid. The fact that a lens that is not designed for close focusing will yield poor results at 1:1 aside, such super short working distance makes lighting the subject difficult.</p>

<p>Again, the OP hasn't told us what the budget is and what the quality requirement is. If the budget is below $100, perhaps some extension tube or diopter are the best available options, with significant compromises in quality. One can also use an inexpensive 55-200mm DX zoom @ 200mm from a few feet away and just crop the center 1MP or so from the 24MP D3200 image. (I.e., using e.g. 1/24 of the frame area.) That could be perfectly acceptable for some web display, e.g. on eBay, Craig's List, Face Book, etc.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if one wants to use most of the 24MP from a D3200 to capture something the size of a thumbnail but three dimensional, it is not at all easy.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Peter, the MF 55mm Micro-Nikkors still need an extension tube to reach 1:1, and I'm seeing the asking price for a genuine Nikon PK-13 being at least half what I paid for my brand-new set of 3 AF-S and D compatible tubes.</p>

<p>Shun, a tight working distance goes with the territory when shooting lifesize, unless one uses an overly long lens like 200mm. And that presents vibration control issues. I found no difficulty in getting the beam of a speedlight pointed between lens and subject for the shot above. I simply held the speedlight in my hand and aimed it at the stamp from about 2ft away. The camera's self timer and popup-flash in master CLS mode did the rest.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Joe, we need to hear from the OP. If he's not printing big, and since it's on DX, 1:1 may be way less important than people are assuming it is.<br /><br />If it's merely for posting on the internet or printing under 8 x 10, a 1:2 image on DX cropped in is sufficient for sure.</p>

<p>Let's not forget, this isn't a working pro asking a question, it's a person with an entry level (but excellent) camera who joined photo.net two days ago to ask this question.<br>

<br />Sometimes on here I get annoyed when someone asks what time it is and we answer by explaining how he must build his own Rolex watch from scratch in order to find out...</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>It's always an issue when the OP apparently abandons the thread. We're all left just stabbing in the dark without any feedback. We still don't know the level of Bob's expertise - apart from the fact that he's using a D3200, which doesn't necessarily mean he's a beginner. He might just be on a tight budget.</p>

<p>Without any dialogue from the OP there's a temptation to throw any and every solution at the question asked. Hence the "self-constructed Rolex watch" syndrome. But I still think a set of extension tubes provides a cheap, flexible and fairly simple solution.</p>

<p> </p>

[pete_resetz]

<p>I have been using the Nikon/Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 AF, 105mm f/2.8 AF-D, and 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-D, lens for over ten years now, and in my opinion, the 60mm give me the most natural perspective. It does not suffer from telephoto compressive effect you get with the longer focal lengths.<br /> The older design 60mm AF-D is still being sold as new, (used for about $250-$300) and has about an inch and a half more working distance from the front lens then the newer 60mm AF-S dose.<br /> The Nikon/Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 is not a very sharp lens compared to the other Nikon/Nikkor offerings of which I have tested two examples myself.<br /> With the 60mm AF-D mounted to either my Nikon D1X, and D2X, with the Nikon SB-80DX flashes head tilted down, wide angle fresnel deployed, and the diffuser dome attached, I get an even illumination of subjects with the lens set at 1:1, without any shadowing.<br /> Also,you might consider the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro lens of which I'll be purchasing in the near future. It has about the same working distance as the Nikon, and is just as sharp.<br /> You could also purchase a TTL sync cord for the flash and hold the flash next to the lens, and use a reflector on the off side. I do this all the time with good results.<br>

The image example submitted is .470 in/12mm in size. Reproduction of 1:1.<br /> Pete Resetz</p>

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