john.mathieson

The lens doesn't change, but your perspective changes a little, because the field of view is smaller, so you have to be a little further away from the subject to get the same field of view. For a given field of view, you will get an increase in working distance.

**********************

What I really mean, is how does this effect change the way one would shop for such a lens? To what extent would I consider say the 60mm lens on a digital camera to be similar to a 90 mm lens on a non-digital camera? Would the two have the same working distance? I would think the FOV would be the same - (because of the "internal cropping" effect.

One other thing I want to consider is how useful the macro lens would be for portrait work. I know a lot of people like using a longer lens for portrait work - so would the 60mm macro make a nice portrait lens? or, conversely, would a 105 mm lens used on a digital be a little too narrow in FOV for portraits?

Thanks

John

I am in the process of choosing a Macro lens for a new Nikon D100 -

have read through a lot of forums here describing the differences

between 50 - 100 - 200 mm Macro lenses - with almost no discussion

found about how the multiplier effect of a Digital SLR changes these

considerations.

For instance, the Nikon 60mm Micro should in theory become roughly a

90 mm Macro - how does this change your choice? Does it get a longer

working distance? Is this enough to make bug hunters happy? or does

it just give you more motion problems, eliminating the possibility of

any handhelds?

Is a 105 mm lens then effectively a 160 mm lens? How does this affect

its usefulness for portraits? Would this drop its Angle of view down

to maybe 16 degrees?

What the heck happens to a 200 mm macro? I haven't seen any comments

from anyone using one of these combinations.

Also, since you can choose any kind of ISO you want, and change it at

will, how does this affect the way you use these lenses? Do you

bracket ISO regularly? or stick with something you get used to?

Lots of fun. Thanks in advance.

John

Thank you all for your responses. Some of the lenses are a bit more $$ than I have left over at the moment - ie the 17-35 2.8 and the 85 macro - but they are obviously great lenses.

For the wide angle end, I was looking at the Sigma 15-30, or a 18-35 type. How much will the 3 degrees matter? I would suspect, a fair amount. Any comments on the Sigma?

For the Macro - Yaron - I am interested in your comparison of the 60 and 105 - on digital the 60 should function a bit like a 90 - what would be its main limitations?

Thanks again

Instead of shooting your digital at the lowest ISO rating (the normal recommendation), select a high ISO for very contrasty scenes, within the bounds of your camera's exposure capability.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What do you suggest - 1000+?

I have just bought a Nikon D100, and have to decide what lenses to

get. My old SLR is not a Nikon so none of the lenses I painstakingly

(and expen$ively) accumulated are of use. (ouch!)

What would be your choice of 3 or 4 great lenses for a digital SLR?

My interests include a variety of macro subjects, and outdoor scenes.

I haven't done much portrait work, but would like to try. I also do

like sports photos. Also - probably will get an underwater housing -

interested in Macro mainly Underwater, but some wide angle also. So,

what would you recommend? thinking of the following -

1. I already bought a Nikon 24-120 3.5-5.6 with the camera

2. a good macro

3. ultrawide, possibly zoom - outdoor and indoor use

4. maybe a telephoto for sports - specifically soccer

Any advice?

Many thanks

John

(by the way - I really am enjoying the D100 - great fun doing lots of

bracketing and then simply erasing the experiments)