Should I get a 105mm F4 micro if i already own a 55mm f2.8 micro?

[maktime]

Hi everyone,

 

I already own a Nikkor 55m F2.8 micro lens, which i just got recently

and I luv it. Took some really nice photos of flowers and such. What

I wanted to ask everyone was if it was worth getting a 105mm F4 micro

lens?

As I would like to take pictures of say birds or bugs without scaring

them away. Will the 105mm lens help? Or are their any techniques

someone could share with me into taking photos of bugs?

Thanks again I appreciate the responses!

Bye

[art_haykin]

About the only significant difference the 105 will offer is a greater working distance. For really small bugs, you might need a low power microscope with camera attachment adaptors.

[maktime]

hmm okies I didn't know i had to get that stuff don't think I'd be able to afford that. Thanks for the info though. Guess I won't be getting the 105mm f4 micro then, since my 55mm micro works superbly!

thanks for the advice though.

[harry_akiyoshi]

The 55mm 2.8 micro is a terrific lens. Unless you really need the extra working distance, it's probably not woth getting the 105. 105mm isn't long enough for most birds, really -- I think 300mm is just about the absolute minimum -- and it's not that suited to insect photography either. It would work all right for large insects, but the large insects that people really like to photograph (butterflies) are too shy for that short of a working distance. You really need a 200mm lens unless you're willing run around a lot.

 

You can take interesting insect pictures by reversing a wide-angle lens. Anything wider than 35mm would do the trick. I'm not suggesting that you buy a wide-angle lens just for this purpose, but if you already have one, you can buy a reversing ring for about $15 that will let you attach it to your camera backwards. It's very difficult to photograph things this way, and the results won't be as sharp as with your 55mm lens (few things are, after all) but you can get 2x or 3x or magnification this way, which is enough to photograph insects pretty well. However, be advised that the working distance is very, very short.

[leif_goodwin8]

I would agree with Andrew on this. A 105mm lens does not have enough working distance for butterflies etc. For these insects you really need a 200mm lens. However 200mm is not enough for birds for which you need 400mm+. You could try a 200mm F4 lens + achromatic diopter as a cheap but decent way to get close ups of wary insects.

[art_karr]

Leif:

 

Depends on the bird. For most birds, even raptors, rather than

worrying about equipment, I would learn about the birds. Take

your camera and spend some time with them. Let them get to

know that you are non-threatening. Observe. I have found that an

M6 with a 135 mm is more than enough. It is also relatively quiet.

The birds don't think they have been attacked by an alien fleet

when you take the picture. Just my experience. On another note,

dead insects make the best subjects. ;<).

 

Art Karr

[leif_goodwin8]

Art: Are you based in the US? I remember on a trip to Florida being amazed at how tame the birds were. It is possible to get really close to Ibis, Egrets etc. I spend some time in the UK bird watching and I can rarely get as close to birds as you suggest. I have been within a few feet of birds of prey but only a few times and by accident. Do you really get that close to non captive birds of prey? If so, errm, how? Or is it a trade secret?

 

On the subject of insects, I nearly suggested that Mak go and kill some! I guess for macro work (1:1 and greater) that is the best option. I like to stalk live dragonflies with the 200mm lens. I enjoy using stalking skills to find them and get close. Some people catch them, put them in the fridge to stop them moving, then photograph them on a suitable perch. I don't like that as it is a little dishonest for my taste as it does not show the true behaviour and habitat of the insect. A matter of taste I guess.

[art_karr]

Leif:

 

Yes, right in the middle of the US; in a rural area. Our property is

mostly forested. Pine, birch, juniper, oak, hickory, ash and etc:

with a big pond. Our most common raptors are falcons. We see

most of the ones native here; peregrine and prairie [same thing]

are the most common. I can get within 10 ft of them. Hawks and

harriers are a little more cautious but doable. Bald eagles and

osprey ignore you. We get egrets in the spring and fall and are

no trouble. We get an occasional kite. Song birds [we have many

since we are at the intersection of eastern and western species]

are not that skittish. You just have to spend time with them and

they become calm. Gulls are another matter, as are crows and

ravens. Herons will stand for photos. We are in a bird rich area

so I have probably forgotten some. The song bird population has

really increased in the last few years. Of course there are the

game birds. Quail, turkey, etc. I counted 50 of the turkey kind in

my yard the other day. Getting close is no problem. The toms will

charge you. If you can run fast backward, you can get a full frame

shot with a 24 mm and perhaps some beak marks in your coat.

;<).

 

Art Karr

[maktime]

Hiyas all,

 

Thanks for all your reponses! I'm based in Sydney quite close to the city so unfortunately don't get alot of birds to practise my sneaking and stalking skills heheh. But I'll give it ago next time i'm at the botanical gardens again. hmmm best way to take (1:1) insects is to kill them?........ Is that really neccesary? I don't like to kill anything. I have heard of people freezing dragnflies then taking pictures of them as they defrost. I'm also against freezing anything too. I do have a 28mm wide angle lens I might try and do the revers thing with the ring.

 

I'm going to buy john shaws, closeups in nature and maybe Paul Harcourt Davies, the complete guide to closeup and macro photography as well today. Thanks for everyones advice though! I can't afford to get a 200mm-400mm micro lens :( *sniff* way out of my league with price range. I won't be able to justify the cost unless i can make some money out of it or something hehehe.

 

Thanks for everyones overwhelming input :)

[alex_lofquist]

I use both the Micro Nikkor 60 f/2.8 and the 105 f/2.8. They each have their applications. I like the 60 for copying flat objects like documents and maps, but the 105 is much more useful for small natural subjects, as there is less obscuration of illumination by the lens. Sure, it is easier to hand hold the 60 (or 55) due to its shorter focal length, but for macros both lenses belong on tripods (if you are not using flash). For great working distance, I will use a 300mm f/4 with a 1.4X TC, and sometimes a 25mm extension tube.

[mskovacs]

If you want to shoot macros of small, active subjects it means you need to work at high magnification without a tripod. To preserve depth of field, you require a small aperture. What I'm getting at is that you need to use flash and that means you need enough working distance to light the subject. With a 55 micro, no way can this be done in the field.

 

The 100/4 micro is a superb optic, but you may need something longer to gain enough working distance not to scare your subject away. As mentioned above, this is where a 200mm lens can really be handy.

 

Another versatile option is to get a small, light zoom such as the 80-200/4.5 and use the 3T/4T Nikon closeup diopters and to light your subject with flash. Zoom to select your magnification, focus by positioning the lens. (don't use the focus ring!) If you get one of the f/4 zooms, same advice, you just need the larger 5T/6T diopters.

 

You mention Shaw's book and I can't recommend it enough. Its a nice bonus that he is a Nikon shooter and used the gear you mention in the 1980's when the book was written.

[maktime]

Thanks for the reply everyone. I've just bought a Nikon 80-200mm F4.5 just waiting for it's arrival. Wow I didn't know that you can use the 80mm-200mm zoom to do macro work excellent! So I just need to get the 3T and 4T Diopeters? Do you know what kind of maginification I'll get? How far or close would I need to be to the subject? The 55mm micro I have has a distance of like 20cms.....which wouldn't be good for insects bugs and the like since I'll end up scaring them away.

 

Has anyone tried reversing lenses? I'm thinking of getting the BR3 and BR2-a i think those were the reversing rings. What lenses have you people tried to reverse? And what kind of maginification? Are the imaegs sharp?

 

I haven't been able to get the John Shaw books (I've ordered them through Amazon.com) But I did get another book by Paul Davies Harcourt. And he was describing about putting a prime lens e.g 200mm to the body then reversing say a 50mm lens onto it. Has anyone tried this?

 

Another question about flashes as well. What kind of flash could you guys suggest for my Nikon F2? I've read a bit about macroflashes but dont know much about them.

 

Thanks for everyones response. I'm definitely going to get the reversing rings BR3, BR2-a as well as the Diopters 3T and 4T thanks for your advice Mike!

[harry_akiyoshi]

I have that same zoom lens. It's quite excellent; the Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 was the first widely available pro-quality zoom ever. Lenses before it, like the 43-86mm zoom, were largely dismissed as incapable of delivering sharp photos; that 80-200 zoom changed the world. It's reasonably sharp at all distances and all apertures, which was unprecedented. Even by modern standards, it's not at all bad.

 

For macro work, you may have to have it tightened up a bit. Most of those lenses are pretty old -- I think mine probably has about 20 years on it -- and they get a little loose. With the lens pointed downward, the zoom setting will gradually drift out to 80mm. Shooting macros from a tripod, that can get pretty frustrating. It's true that the lens is really great with close-up diopters, though. Zoom drift is a fixable thing, if you care to have it done, but it costs a bit.

[stemked]

I have both a 50mm macro and a 100mm macro. The 100mm macro is, in my opinion, a MUCH more useful lens.

 

1) You have to get very close to insects with 50mm. Way too close. It is possible with some insects to use a 100mm.

 

2) 50mm is too wide a field for many shots. A closeup of a flower may include too much bright sky that you pick up in the field, very distracting.

 

3) Even landscapes I find the 100mm very nice to isolate portions of a landscape.

 

4) With a good lens and a good teleconvertor you can do some fairly serious bug photography.

 

5) With a reversed 50mm lens on your 100mm you have INCREDIBLE magnification ability. Lots of fun. You really need a macroslider to use this combo though

 

A 100mm macro, in my book, certainly is worth it.

[maktime]

hmm yup I've still been thinking bout that 105mm micro nikkor. But i got no money right now. Damn photography is a expensive hobby :(

I'll have to hunt around for a decently priced one when I get some more money....Yea I noticed that with the 55mm I got to get really close...I'll think on about it.

 

I can't wait to get my 800-200mm f4.5 :) I'll definitely have to check whether the focus barrel slides out when i'm trying to do some macro work...thanks for the advice andrew!

[ken_schroeder]

Sounds like you are buying the lenses before the books. I vote with Douglas. I think the 105 Micro is a very useful lens. I prefer the more natural drawing with the 105. In my opinion it would be a far more desirable lens for flowers. The narrower angle would also minimize problem backgrounds. I also prefer the longer working distance for applications like copying. I'm sure the 80-200 is a fine lens, but the 105 micro is a specialist lens, optimized for close work. I wouldn't take my Micro to a football game, and, if I owned one, I wouldn't use an 80-200 for closeups.

 

 

My suggestion for the first order of business would be to study John Shaw's books. Please do not be offended, but you seem to have more money than experience. Invest in some film and a few good books. Learn to use your new 80-200. The 105s will be available if and when you decide you might want one.