going macro: 50 or 105?

[ted___2]

I've decided to dish out the money to get a good and sharp macro lens for flower shots, insect and lizard shots, and for whatever else might come up. I have the Sigma 70-210/3.5-4.5 macro(1:2) which I have found to be quite sharp, but not sharp enough. I'm also annoyed by the fact that I have to have atleast 1/250 shutter speed to get decent quality hand-held. What focal length have you found to be the most interesting and useful, 50 or 105? If 50, which lens would be the best to get: the nikkor 60 or the new sigma EX? Wouldn't the nikkor be a little less convenient if it goes does to f5 as its max aperture at 1:1? If 105, The sigma EX or the more expensive nikkor?

I'm looking for a VERY sharp lens that would be worth keeping even if I turned pro. thanks in advance

[paulo_bizarro]

I have done macro work with a 50 and a 100mm lenses. I ended up getting the EF 180 macro, it is just superb and comfortable to work with. I suppose the Nikon equivalent is the 200mm macro, so this is the one I would recommend, based in my own experience. It gives you a larger working distance (important for insects), and a stronger popping out effect.

[Albins images]

On 50 vs 105:

I find lenses with both focal lenses extremely useful. Though the 105 gets used a little more than the 55, I wouldn't want to part with any of them. A 200mm would complement this set and is definately on my wish-list. 'Beyond' that, I got very good results from 300/4 + 1.4TC and extension-rings on heavy tripod...

 

<p>

 

You might want to check (50mm macro lense; and there's more to be found in the archives of this forum!): http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0001ck

 

<p>

 

On maximum aperture:

Both my 55 (max. 3.5) and 105 (max. 2.8) perform to my satisfaction wide-open. But for close-ups I will practically always use them with apertures of 5.6 and smaller, on a tripod. Fast moving small animals will make the use of flash necessary and aperture only matters to increase depth of field.

 

<p>

 

PRO (there we go again):

Lenses by the big camera manufacturers will hold their value longer. Not only because they have 'the name', but also because in many cases they will just survive longer in good shape.

 

<p>

 

'nuff said

[ShunCheung]

I have both a 105mm and a 200mm macro lens, and I prefer by far the 200mm. It lets you shoot with a lot more room between the lens and the subject to reduce the chance of disturbing it (e.g. an insect) or your shadow falling on it. Moreover, 200mm macros tend to come with a tripod collar, which is very handy.

 

<p>

 

In most cases, I wouldn't recommand shooting macro hand held. There is too much magnification which is prone to camera shake. Moreover, usually you need to shoot with a small aperture to achieve a deeper depth of field, hence the shutter speed needs to be slow. The tripod collar on a 200mm macro is extremely helpful. (Of course, there are exceptions. For example, hand holding is pretty much the only two to go if you are shooting a butterfly that moves from flower to flower.)

[paal_jensen1]

I you plan to be succesful at shooting macro you will use a tripod or flash or both. Most of the time you will stop down to at least F:11 in order to get enough depth of field. For nature macros the 105 is a far better choice than the 60mm. It will give you extra working distance; particularly useful when shooting insects. If you can afford it; go for a 200mm macro lens. It is even more useful for your intended use. I would not be without mine.

Buy the Nikon lenses if you can afford it.

[danny_weber]

Nikon's 70-180mm zoom macro is an excellent solution that allows you to vary the magnification without changing the camera position. I've used it to replace both the 60 and 105mm lenses. Its short working distance means that it's not a substitute for the 200mm, though. It's also heavier than either the 60 or 105, which makes it less comfortable for handholding. OTOH, it has a tripod collar and it also is a good, general purpose tele zoom, so it's more versatile tan any of the other macro lenses.

 

<p>

 

Regardless of the focal length you choose, you will have the same shutter speed issue, since the amount of blur depends on magnification, not focal length. The way to take sharp handheld macro shots is to use flash.

[paul_wilson2]

Normally, if you said a Sigma zoom wasn't sharp enough for you, I wouldn't be surprised. However, since you mention shooting handheld and you imply you're not using a flash, a tripod and/or a flash should be your first step(as Paal mentions).

 

<p>

 

Anyway, any Nikon macro lens is going to be sharp enough for you. The Sigma is probably quite good also, though I'd probably stick with Nikon. I own a Micro-Nikkor 105AF and a Micro-Nikkor 200AF. Since I bought the 200, I rarely use the 105 for macro stuff. So the lesson is get the longest you can afford

[eielrt_anders]

Essentially the same question was asked before in this forum. Look toward the bottom of tis forum under "Macro Lenses consider...(Lawrence).

 

<p>

 

Buy a Nikor.

[lawrence___3]

If you can afford the 105Micro Nikkor AF D f/2.8, then get it! I don't have the 200Micro Nikkor, so I can't say anything about that (it is on my to-buy list). I asked the same question a while back and after reading the responses and John Shaw's book on macrophotograhy, I went out and bought the 105Micro (~$600 at BH in NY). I've been quite happy and content with the lense and its optical quality since.

[duane_galensky]

Flower shots and insect shots strike me as different problems, unless the insect is on the order of scale as the flower and you want to include the same amount of surrounding area.

 

<p>

 

As stated previously, hand-holding is not really an option unless the image is dominated in flash light (which I personally find unappealing unless done with great care.) For moving insects, a dual flash setup (ratioed to separate the key light from the background light) with a long focal length and handheld might work best, however, because the subjects generally move around a lot. For flowers, which hopefully are stationary or can be made so once you block the wind somehow, a shorter focal length is sometimes nice, and from a tripod with a soft, diffused, natural light. In both cases, the lens is stopped way down so maximum aperture is not really a consideration.

 

<p>

 

I would agree with the above posters and suggest the 70-180 ED zoom micro. Alternatively, since you have a zoom macro of sorts, the 105 micro puts you kinda in the middle of the range if 1:1 is important and you can only consider one lens. With money no object, I might pick both the 60 and the 200. Since you already have a Sigma zoom, I'd recommend sticking with the Nikkors, particularly for prime lenses, since their quality is top notch. I can assure you that if you do, you won't be posting about looking for a replacement because the lens is 'sharp but not sharp enough.'

[ShunCheung]

Obviously there are exceptions to any rule, but my rule of thumb is that for nature macro work, the longer the focal lengh, the better it is [i am not sure about a 600mm macro though :-) ]. Since the original choices are between a 50/60mm macro and a 100/105mm, I would go for the 105mm, but IMO a 200mm would be even better, not to mention that most 200mm macros come with a tripod collar. However, 200mm macros do cost more though.

 

<p>

 

For Nikon users, the new 70-180 zoom macro is an interesting choice. When I bought my 200mm macro a few months ago, I was choosing between that and the zoom. The zoom is actually a bit cheaper and gives you the option to change magnification without moving the camera, a bit plus. I have seen the 70-180 zoom in stores but have never used one. Its maximum aperture on the long (180mm) end is f5.6. I wonder whether that is a bit too slow such that the view-finder is somewhat too dark for critical focusing. [i understand you usually stop down to f11 or f16 to shoot, but I am talking about critical manual <b>focusing</b> with the aperture wide open.] Moreover, Nikon keeps the max aperture at f5.6 when that zoom focuses to a close distance. What gives is that the focal length actually gradually decreases to shorter than the max 180mm.

[jim_bridges]

I use the AF 105/2.8 D Micro, and it is about as short as I'd go for the type of macro (closeup) work you are talking about. The 200 would even be better. I attach the TC-201 to my 105 when I need more working room, and it works fine.

 

<p>

 

It's not going to matter which lens you pick, if your technique is not good. Use a sturdy tripod, and cable release for the best results in natural light.

[john_meisenheimer]

For your first lens, try the Nikon 105 f2.8 Macro. Absolutely razor

sharp, and the added distance between subject and camera is a big

plus. It is much easier to crop; to avoid distubing the subject; and

allows ample room for flash or reflectors. I Tend to use the 55

Macro more for an overall lens and scenics. The 200 Macro would be

an ideal insect and solitary flower type of lens, and should

definitly be considered long term.

 

<p>

 

I would suggest Nikon lens versus the others on one other very

important topic: Color Correctness. I find most other lens(Sigma,

Tokina, etc) to be very sharp lens, as sharp as any nikon lens of

comparable type. But where I have found them fail me is the ability

to maintain accurate color reproduction over the entire range of the

lens. I have had trouble with color shifts when adding a Sigma lens

to a bellows or extention tubes for instance. When one buys a

premium Nikon lens, you are assured of both Sharpness and Color

Correctness.

[george_rhodes]

For insects and lizards, the 105mm would definately be of more use to you than the 50mm range. You will need the extra working distance. The 105mm would even be better for flower work, in my opinion. I had an old 100mm Minolta, which I used extensively. I found it to be an very nice focal length for insects, flowers, portraits of both people and animals. I later acquired a Nikkor 60mm and the old style 200mm Nikkor Macro. The 200mm gave me added working distance for lizards and such, which was very helpful. However, I still personally preferred the 100mm range for insects. I rarely used the 60mm at all, except for scenics and general shooting. It does not provide a very useful working distance for most macro nature work.

 

<p>

 

Most macro work is done in the f11-f16 range for the added depth of field. One or more flash units are extremely useful for macro work. It enables you to shoot hand held at f16 without having to worry about motion. Without flash, I highly recommend use of a tripod. If you have a Nikon camera, I would recommend going with a Nikkor macro lens. All Nikkor macro (micro) lenses have excellent reputations.

[ed_lino]

My experience has been that the 200mm is a good choice when considerind pictures of moving subjects like insects, reptiles or anything that would take off as you get closer to. The draw back is that it's a heavy toy and so you will require a tripod to avoid shake-and-cry pictures. If cost and weight is your concern, your next chioce is the 105mm. Please do not get the 60mm for the type of photo your interest calls for because if you do that you will only be taken pictures of dead critters. You will be so close to your subject that you may step over or lean over and squash it ... as some insects would claim "you are right on my face, get away?" get the picture?