Upgrade long macro lens or D100 ?

[david_tolcher]

My 200mm micro nikkor (AI version) is a bit long in the tooth and

just doesnt have the quality of the shorter macro lens or

particularly the Tamron 90mm that I use. I do need the longer focal

length for the insect photography I do - no brainer in that respect.

The interesting dilemma that I face right now is do I replace it with

a 180mm tamron/200mm AF micro nikkor or buy a D100 ? The D100 would

get me alot of the way there with a 1.6X on the Tamron 90mm and have

advantages in depth of field etc. If I bought digital next year then

the 200mm would be too long for what I do and would become redundant.

Just wondered whether anyone had faced the same question and has any

experience of making a decision ? <p>Thanks <p>Dave

<p>http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

[klix]

David - a few things:

 

1) sounds like the primary problem is that your 200mm AI is no longer acceptable. The Ockham's Razor answer is to replace that with one that is - so the simple solution is buy a new 200mm Macro.

 

2) If you opt instead to extend your 90mm Macro, have you tried a teleconverter to see what that would offer you?

 

3) IMO, "going digital" does NOT seem like the best answer IF your sole purpose is to replace an aging 200 AI macro, and all you want to do is be able to use and "extend" your 90mm.

 

4) Again, IMO, the digital option would only be viable for you at this time if you have OTHER REASONS (outside of your question) to buy a D100.

 

5) Remember that by using a D100, A LOT of things will change (not the least of which is your entire post-processing workflow).

 

So, IF (1) above is your only reason to get a D100, stick with your film camera and get a new 200mm lens OR a teleconverter for your Tamron.

 

Good luck!!!

 

KL

[arnabdas]

David,

 

Get the 200 AF Micro. I've been using one for last 1+ year and it is a *dream*. You can see the results in my folder.

 

Buy great optics now, and wait for DSLR prices to drop and quality to improve. At this time of change, the optics will serve you better in the long run and give you more for the money.

[leonbeyr]

Wait wait wait. Maybe I got it all wrong here, but I'm pretty sure I didn't. Going digital will not make your 90mm longer. The narrower angle of a lens mounted on a dSLR is due to "cropping" of the sensor, there is no modification of optical caracteristics.

 

Sooo... if you use a dSLR with a 90mm, you still have to keep the same sensor-to-subject distance to obtain equivalent magnification. If you have to have keep your insect 3in. away to have a 1:1 magn. ratio with your film SLR, and if at that distance the insect fills the frame(a 24x36mm bug sounds frightening ;), with a dLSR you either have only part of the insect at a 1:1 ratio, with same distance, or you pull back at a longer distance to have the whole insect in the frame... but you don't have a 1:1 ratio anymore (you're filling a 16x24mm frame with your 24x36mm bug now).

 

Of course, if pixels had been concentrated on the sensor to achieve a better resolution than film, you could compensate for the lower magnification ratio by making a wider enlargment of the picture... but I doubt it's realistic for now. So if you want to stay further from your insects, it's better to stick with film, enlarge and crop than to shift to digital. A teleconverter sound more like what you're looking for than a dSLR.

[alex_lofquist]

If the Bishop of Ockham did macro photography, were his images razor sharp?

[ilkka_nissila]

I think DSLRs are <B>made</B> for insect photography. You get much better image quality <I>per sensor/film area</I> than with film, larger depth of field, high iso speeds without much loss in image quality, and versatility in varying light conditions when compared with slide film. If I were an animal photographer (including insects), I would probably have <I>two</I> DSLRs.

[david_tolcher]

Thanks for your responses - I am familiar with the pros and cons of a smaller sensor area and the crop versus telephoto effect. A crop or longer focal length gives me more working distance for the same relative frame fill so if the quality is comparable I gain the equivalent of a longer lens but with more dof. Because it is winter I can bide my time to see what nikon announce over the coming months as the only affordable dslr for me is the d100 but I desperately need AI/AIS lenses to meter otherwise it limits my specialist lens usage. All I have read and images seen suggests that a d100 is a very viable alternative for bug photography. <p> Many thanks

[greglyon]

Something else to consider...I use a D100 with a 200f4 AIS Micro. There's no metering (yet...I'm planning to have it 'chipped' one of these days) but it's still viable to shoot with whenever you're in a relatively static lighting situation. take a shot or two, review the histogram to see if you're in the right place, make a modification if necessary, then shoot away. You could also use a meter, but I think the histogram is more accurate and just as fast, and it's one less thing to carry around. I'm hoping to post a photo or two tonight from a recent trip...

[arnabdas]

"I think DSLRs are made for insect photography. You get much better image quality per sensor/film area than with film, larger depth of field, high iso speeds without much loss in image quality, and versatility in varying light conditions when compared with slide film. If I were an animal photographer (including insects), I would probably have two DSLRs." - Ikka

 

I beg to differ. I don't miss DSLRs at all and I could afford to buy a D100 right away.