Macro Lenses Consider...

[lawrence___3]

Which would be a good marco lens to start out with? I am using a Nikon N70 body. Philip Greenspun's review of the Nikkor 60 Mircro was very helpful, but I think the working distance that lense allows is a bit short. I was thinking of the Nikkor 105 Mircro. However, I could surely use some advice from you experts who have taken the first steps. I would also like to have some comments on third parties lenses. One more thing, what should I get with this lens as a package (ie. lenses hood, filter(s), etc.)? Yep, I have no idea, but I am browsing my library's book shelves for books of this subject. Still, it helps tremendously to hear from first-hand users. Thank you in advance...

L.

[jim_bridges2]

The Nikkor AF105/2.8 D Micro has more working distance than the AF60/2.8 Micro,(60mm = 8 3/4 inches, 105mm = 12 inches.. and these distances are from the back of the cameras film plane, not the front of the lens) and if you are going to use it in the field for macro photography you will want those extra inches the 105 affords you. I also use the TC201 for even more working distance when it's required and still get very good results with this setup.

 

<p>

 

Get the lens hood when you get the lens, and I use a polarizer filter when using it on some landscape photography. By the way, it is great for landscape photography.

 

<p>

 

The best book on macro photography is John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature". It cost $25.00, but for the information about macro photography that's in it, it's a bargain! It should be required reading for anyone that wants to get into macro photography. It will answer any question you have about the subject.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

[dan_liem]

The Nikkor 105 Micro (why did they name it that?) macro lens is one of the sharpest designed. It's a fantastic lens. I find the working distance to be well-suited for my macro photography (which is rarely of moving subjects). I would stay away from the 50mm simply because of the lack of working distance - the 105mm leaves the end of the lens close to the subject as it is. The 50mm must be almost touching it.

 

<p>

 

By the way, I agree with the above recommendation of "Closeups in Nature" - buy it, read it, learn from it. It should come with all macro lenses :)

 

<p>

 

Dan Liem

[ricardo_carvajal2]

The only reason to go third party here would be to gain experience and decide if you really want to do this type of photography without breaking the bank. If you're going to go third party, go cheap - really cheap. Vivitar sells a 105 3.5 macro for $120 that is supposed to give decent results. If you're ready to invest more, might as well go for the Nikkor.

[john_n._wall]

I will second all the positive comments about the 105 Nikkor macro, and about John Shaw's book. There are also some very helpful discussions about macro photography in George Lepp's BEYOND THE BASICS that complement Shaw's presentation.

 

<p>

 

There are other ways to get to the macro level, however, that are less than the $550 (B&H) price of the 105 macro lens.

 

<p>

 

One is to use Nikon's 3T or 4T (for lenses that take 52 mm filters) or 5T and 6T (for lenses that take 62 mm filters) closeup lenses.

 

<p>

 

These can convert other lenses into macro lenses with good results. My favorite pro wildflower photographer, for example, swears by the Nikkor 75-300 zoom and 5T and 6T lenses for closeup work.

 

<p>

 

Another possibility is the use of extension tubes.

 

<p>

 

As far as aftermarket lenses go, Vivitar (yes, Vivitar) has a 100 mm (or thereabouts) macro that many people think quite highly of.

[don_baccus]

I also think you should get a 105mm (or thereabouts) macro. I disagree with comments which imply the third party macro lenses aren't worth considering unless you consider them a cheap way to experiment with macro photography.

 

<p>

 

This is one type lens that almost everyone seems to get right. Of the third party lenses I've owned in the past, an old Kiron 105/2.8 1:1 macro is the only I'd rate as suberb (as opposed to my "good value for the money and no more" for my old Sigma 400/5.6 APO, for instance).

 

<p>

 

If you can afford the Nikkor, certainly get it. I spent the extra bucks for Canon's, for instance.

 

<p>

 

But, if it's a stretch for you, be assured that the better (more expensive) third party macros are extremely sharp. My only caveat is to stick to one which focuses directly down to 1:1 rather than 1:2. While there's nothing magic about 1:1, the reality is that those that require an adaptor of some sort will result in your having to fiddle with the lens configuration enough to perhaps be annoying.

[frank_kolwicz]

I'm an extremist, I think the 200mm macros are the way to go.

One of the other posters said he uses his 105 with a 2x tele most

of the time and gets good results and good working distance. I have

a 50mm macro and the only reason I have for using it to get very

high magnifications with extention tubes, greater than 3x or so. I

used the 200 with extension and a 2x tele to get around 5x at about

10 inches to photograph a frog's eye, so the 50 is only for special

circumstances. The 200 and 2x tele makes a nice 400mm macro for bugs.

[glen_johnson]

I will stay out of the discussion on the specific lenses, but I do have something general to add in answer to your question.

 

<p>

 

Which focal length to choose is pretty much dependent on what subjects you want to shoot. If you intend to do copy work (stamps, coins, the insides of small machines, text, etc.), or if you intend to make the macro lens double as a normal lens, then you probably ought to pick something in the 50 to 60mm range.

 

<p>

 

If you want to shoot nature subjects, or if you already have a normal lens and you want the macro lens to double as a short telephoto or portrait lens, then you really need something in the 90 to 105mm range, and for the nature subjects you will find yourself reaching for the teleconverter pretty regularly.

 

<p>

 

If you exclusively want to shoot nature subjects without moving them into a staged shooting area, you really need to seriously consider the 180 to 200mm range, and you will still find yourself reaching for the teleconverter pretty regularly.

 

<p>

 

One thing that was commented on above is the idea that you get more working distance with the longer focal length lenses, but you've got to remember that the published information is nearly always closest focus distance, which is measured from the film plane to the subject plane. Although the longer focal length lenses do get you farther away for 1:1 magnification, the longer focal length lenses are also physically longer than the shorter ones, so the extra working distance (defined as the distance between the entrance pupil of the lens and the subject plane, doesn't increase as dramatically as one would wish for. This is why the teleconverters turn out to be such a useful addition to your macro kit. A 2x teleconverter doubles the image size on the film plane for any given camera position, and this can really give you the extra working distance that you need for closeups in nature.

 

<p>

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that your technique can make or break your macro photos. Lighting and camera support become hypercritical as you move toward and beyond life size on the film plane.

[kuryan_thomas]

For flower photography, I've found the Micro60 to be not that great. There is too much in the background (the view is too "wide"). I use the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 for a lot of flower photographs and it does really well. It doesn't come anywhere close to 1:1, though.

 

<p>

 

My next purchase will be the Micro105, from everything I've read.

 

<p>

 

Be sure you have a good solid tripod.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

[mark_ci]

I'd like to add one more thing about the virtues of macros in the 200 mm range for field work. In addition to the increased working distance, these lenses feature a rotating tripod collar, which can be very handy. Framing and focusing your subject is a real pain in macro range. If you have to flop your tripod head over to get a vertical shot, you're back to square one, moving and adjusting your tripod again. With a rotating collar you just rotate and your subject stays framed and in focus. I've used the 105 in the Nikon system, but for my new EOS system I'm going to save for the 180 with the collar. I think a long collared lens and a focussing rail are the two keys to frustration-free macro field work.

[craig_andrew_yuill]

I don't understand why some people are so quick to put down third-party lenses. I've owned two third-party macros, and have taken many sharp macro photos with both of them.

 

<p>

 

The first was the Panagor 90mm f/2.8 Macro, with 1:1 focussing. I believe that it was also available as a Vivitar (non-Series-1) macro too. The 1:1 focussing was a very attractive feature. It was very well marked and quite well built. It had very good sharpness both far away and close up. Some have complained about flare that the Vivitar version produced. I never saw this, but I never did use it shooting directly into the sun either.

 

<p>

 

I now own the AF Tamron 90mm f/2.5 SP (the first AF version, not to be confused with the new, improved f/2.8 version). It only focusses 1:2, but is more compact and seems to be better finished. It also may be the sharpest 35mm-format lens I've ever owned. This lens is capable of producing very sharp photos at near and far distances, but it seems to be contrastier than the Panagor was. It does, however, produce lots of flare when direct sunlight strikes the front lens element, so judicious use of the lens hood is in order. It also suffers from focus creep when pointed straight up or down when used on MF Nikons, although this is not a problem on AF Nikons. (This is one area where the Micro Nikkor would be better.) Tamron (oddly) does not call it a macro lens, but rather a portrait lens. Whatever!

 

<p>

 

It would be well worth looking at the new AF Tamron 90mm f/2.8 SP lens. It is better built than the one I own, plus has much better placed controls, and does not have the focus creep problem. Its price is about 2/3 that of a 105 Micro Nikkor.

[frank_kolwicz]

Following up on Glenn Johnson's remarks, I'd like to say that the

200mm Macros do have lots more working room than the shorter focal

lengths. More than enough to get your lighting where you want it at

maximum magnification. And, yes the tripod collar is a wonderful

addition, I wish every lens had one. (I even modified my 100-300L to

take the 200 Macro's collar. With some loss of zoom range, it is

still my first choice for close-ups with the Nikon 5T and 6T

diopters. It needs no focussing rail and the 6T goes to 1x+ at 300.)

[duane_galensky]

Working distance is often recommended in choosing a longer focal length, and this can be important for skittish subjects. Another attribute of the longer lengths is narrower angle of view, which is very important to isolate the subject effectively. I prefer to shoot with the longest lens I can because it just seems like it's less work to get down to business and crop out the extraneous stuff. Most often a 180 ED with tube. I use the 105 also, and 55 at times when the image would benefit from taking in a wider view, e.g., a group of flowers as opposed to isolating a single one. I like working with a 300 on tubes for closeups also!

[josue__artiga]

I have used a Canon FD 100MM macro for about 10 years. The perspective and working distance that the lens gives has been quite acceptable. I have bee very happy with the lens, and was always "a must take along" lens. That being said, I bought a Canon FD 200MM macro about 3 weeks ago. My opinion on the 200MM is "WOW". The ability of going from infinity to 1:1 without stoping to add extension tubes, the working distance, and that angle of view are just great. Plus the background seems to just drop off, it is truly fantastic. I have never used a 50MM in the field, but from what I know of working with the 100MM, I don't think I would buy a 50MM. In my case, neither lens is made anymore(100MM - 200MM, thanks Canon I will remember you when I buy my next system), and surprisingly both lenses are about the same price. Although the 200MM is extremely hard to find. My biggest problem so far has been that I was so used to the 100MM, that I knew where to place the tripod for the shot I wanted. I will have to re-learn my sense of distance with the 200MM(a very small price to pay). On the other hand I have made a plate for my Arca Swiss ball head that allows me to slide the whole setup back and forth. This has made the growing pain less painfull.

[ferrel_anderson1]

I use both the 60mm and 100mm Elmarit R Leica macro lenses, but find that the best Leica macro lense for nature subjects in the 1:3 and lesser magnification range is the Leica 400mm Telyt! The reason: control of background (i.e., elimination of distractions) and perspective. By moving around with this lense you can actually select the background. All of these lenses are sharp, although the other lenses are sharper at the wider aperatures. In practice this is not a problem, and if you stop the lense down to f11 and smaller, they perform equally because diffraction controls definition beyond this point. In addition, the 400mm lense stops down the f32 for more depth of field. So the earlier comments about the advantages of using a 100mm or 200mm lense with a 2x extender are borne out in my experience. If you are going to use the lense for copy work, a 50 or 60mm lense is preferred, but the 100mm lense is ok if the size of the subject is small (I read somewhere in the literature that the 100mm Mikro Nikor is not a flat field lense). If you are going to use the lense at greater magnifications than 1:3, and the subject is a small plant or animal, the 100 or 200mm lenses are best. In answer your other question, I will repeat the advice of an earlier answerer to get a lense hood and a circular polarizer filter. Filtration needs beyond the use of a polarizer have to be based on your needs, and are beyond the scope of your question.

[steve_bingham]

Geeez guys, working distance isn't EVERYTHING! The Nikon 60mm macro is probably the sharpest lens Nikon makes. More importantly, the depth of field will always be greater with a 50 or 60 than a 100. As depth of field is hard to come by at macro distances this is a plus. Lastly, camera movement becomes less of a factor. With a one stop difference in usuable hand held shots (usuable shutter speeds), this can mean the difference between getting the shot and not (without a tripod). For convience while hiking the 50 or 60 can be left on as a general purpose lens. In fact when I was shooting Canon the 50mm macro stayed on 90% of the time.

 

<p>

 

Although I love the 200 macro for insect and some flower shots, it does have some serious drawbacks. You MUST use a tripod with it. Close ups while handholding will either give you blurry pictures or extremely limited depth of field.

 

<p>

 

Steve

[rich_ernst]

Isn't depth of field solely a function (keeping f-stops fixed) of the size of the image on the film? If so, then for a fixed size of image on film the 50, 60,... lenses wil all have the same depth of field. The greater working distance provided by the longer focal length lenses "compensates" for the usual loss of depth associated with close-up work with the shorter lenses. I know that's not an optical engineer's way of saying that but I do believe that's the way it works in practice. In most situations in 35mm work, greater working distance is almost always a huge plus and if the, say, 1" high image size is still achieved the depth of field will not be reduced using the longer lens.

 

<p>

 

Rich

[bob_atkins]

Depth of field for macro work depends <b>ONLY</b> on the magnification

and the f-stop in use. It is independant of focal length. If you

take 1:1 shots with a 50mm macro or a 200mm macro (at the same

f-stop), you get exactly the same depth of field.

 

<p>

 

If you want to get

pedantic, there <em>might</em> be a very small difference in DOF, of the

order of less than 1% or a few microns. I'd have to run the exact

numerical solution to the DOF equations to be sure, but the

difference (if it exists) would be so small as to be meaningless

for any practical purpose.

[mark_ratermann]

I do not own the Canon 180mm Macro lens, but have seen the results. Now I know the question was in regards to the Nikon 60mm or 105mm micro(?), but my recomendation would be to check out Nikons telephoto lentgh macros, I believe they have a 200mm. The pictures from the 180mm were so sharp, I began questioning whether it was actually taken with a 645.

[paul_wilson2]

According to a good source on the Nikon list, Nikon is about to release a 70-180/4-5.6 Macro zoom that will focus to about 1:1.3(or about .75x). The lens will be a two-touch zoom with a tripod collar and will be an ED lens. Supposedly, the price will be around $1000.

 

<p>

 

This lens sounds interesting but I'm not about to trade my 200/4 Micro for it.

[jeff_hallett]

i guess we,ve about exhausted this subject but i would like to throw in one more comment.

Herbert Keppler, who does some pretty good lens tests for Pop. Photo

magazine, praised Vivitar's 105mm 3.5macro and showed results of his

work. i never would consider even using a vivitar much less buying

one.

WELL... i bought one, the last one B&H had at the time. took 3 rolls

of bugs, mosses, anole eyeballs etc and was pleasantly surprised.

my buddy , a diehard Nikon or bust user shot some of the same stuff

and by god.. my slides were as sharp and contrasty as his and we both

use velvia. i don,t know what his Nikkor cost(wouldn,t tell me, but i

found out) but the vivitar was $180.00 with the 1:1 dioptor. go

figure!!

[lolo_lasid]

Another reason for longer focal-lenght lenses: smaller background area, leading to less distraction in the overall image.

<p>

Remember that longer focal-length lenses have smaller angle of coverage than normal or wide-angle lenses. This means a 200mm lens will cover less area of background for the same subject/foreground size than the background area covered by a 50mm lens (granted, the 50mm lens will have to move closer to obtain the same subject size). Again, with smaller background area, one will <i>normally</i> obtain less distractions unless your background.

[curt_weinhold]

After taking close-ups for 27 years I have formed some opinions. Learn to use what you have available till something better comes along. For me it was a 55 micro, than a Series 1 90mm from Vivitar, (very good), finally the 105 micro. What counts is composition and lighting. My N90s+105+SB26+bounce reflector, and tripod mounted is the best, lightest, simplest, and most foolproof yet. I would use the electronic cable release, but won't pay the cost for a flimsy cord. Use the self-timer set to 3 seconds. The N70 body with a SB24 or later flash should work as well.

[Albins images]

The 'focus' of discussions on the subject of "which lens to choose" is almost always SHARPNESS. In the many of the above reactions I sense the somewhat strange need for un-sharpness (just one nostril-hair or antenna razor sharp and the rest a suggestive blur).

 

<p>

 

I strongly support the more diverse view of Duane Galensky: every subject its own (close-up) approach, which requires different short-focusing solutions.

 

<p>

 

I use the 55mm micro for plants BECAUSE there is a lot in the background (Obi Thomas...) Stamps and small machinery don't make for interesting nature photography, but the 55 makes a very interesting nature photography lens! And indeed, the 55 or so makes an excellent all purpose lens when on the move (Steve Bingham, (Glen E. Johnson)).

 

<p>

 

I use the 105 for small mammals in captivity and 300 with tubes for the more elusive specimens. By the way, I think that the difficulty of focusing fast little animals (like shrews) with 100mm or more should be mentioned as well (the tripod collar won't help you there I'm afraid, Mark Ciccarello).

 

<p>

 

Suppose this will not be the end of the discussion...

(that 's good!)

[steve_hovland]

I'm using a Promaster 28-105 as my all-around lens these days. It focuses to about 10" (from the front of the lense). I have shot some pictures on tripod at f32, and am impressed with the sharpness I see with an 8X magnifier. For example, I shot my living room with Sensia 200 and could see the titles on books at about 12 feet (but I couldn't read the titles- you need medium format for that.) This was done with a $20 Velbon tripod and a Sunpak 355 for fill, with the camera triggered by the self-timer- about a 1/2 second exposure, so mirror slap wasn't a problem. (Nikon says mirror slap will take out some sharpness between 1/4 and 1/250!)