leif_goodwin8

It isn't really the weight that is the issue. It's more a case that at macro distances depth of field is shallow, making positioning hard, and the 200mm focal length will magnify vibrations. You really need a tripod, or just maybe a monopod. It is though a superb lens, so learn to use it and it will reward you.

"The PC-E ... lens looks just as ugly and big as the PC-Micro 85 lens. Nikon does not seem to shake off this very old mechanical design. The press release is very interesting with claims of of "technical break throughs"."

 

Probably hyperbole. But surely big and ugly is unavoidable given the mechanics. Canon's are just as big and ugly.

 

A problem with the existing 85mm TS micro is that the aperture must be stopped down manually, which seems to stuff the flash metering and auto white balance. The new lenses include an electromechanical aperture (as per Canon lenses) which operates with the D300 and D3 (but not earlier cameras it seems).

I think you really need a proper macro/micro lens if you want high quality results. There are plenty about used, and most makes are good.

I was asked by email what I meant by "not a true macro". The answer is that it does not go to 1:1 (lifesize, whereby the image size on the sensor is the same as the object size). It does however go to 1:2 (half lifesize) which is pretty good. Also the image quality close up is not as high as at larger distances, though it may well be satisfactory for many uses.

Yes, but it is not a true macro, and the image quality at close focus is not exactly brilliant.

IMO the working distance is too small for insects, as you end up brushing against them. The 60mm lens works quite well with a TC14A, though there is some loss of sharpness. Personally I would go for a Tamron 90mm macro lens.

Assuming the D300 is as per the D200, then you will be able to meter with this lens, and even enter the lens details into the camera memory to get full matrix metering.

 

Very few lenses are diffraction limited wide open, especially wide angle lenses. But the performance of this lens is excellent even wide open.

 

The D designation affects the use of matrix metering with flash, and is supposed to give improved results. On a D200 this lens performs fine with balanced fill flash. I'm sure the D300 is the same.

 

Nikon flash has a good reputation, and deservedly so IMO.

Mine is an excellent lens: sharp, good contrast and excellent close up performance. But it can sometimes show severe purpling in high contrast situations on a D200.

You can find some excellent information here:

 

http://www.krebsmicro.com/microsetup2/index.html

 

I'm not sure you will get very far without mirror lock up, unless you use flash. I have an old microscope with a mirror, and it is hard to get even illumination. You really need a built in light source. Also the focus is achieved my moving the optics (as shown in the photo above), rather than the stage. This means that attaching a camera can introduce too much weight, and the camera and optics might slowly creep downwards, destroying the focus.

 

Generally photography is easier with a trinocular microscope having a binocular viewer, and a photo port. But you can also remove an eyepiece from the binocular/monocular tube, and insert a projection eyepiece, and camera adaptor. The problem here is stability. Alternatively just use a digicam held against the eyepiece.

 

The camera adaptors usually come with a screw thread at the end which accepts a T2 adaptor appropriate to your camera, in this case Nikon.

 

You'll find lots of useful information here:

 

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/

 

Including using a digicam.

As I understand it Rorslett's reviews are based on a combination of experience and photographic tests, and as such they are pretty reliable, even though they do not usually have example photos. I like the short and to the point format. However, he may only have tested one sample of the recent lens, so his review might not be representative, due to sample variation. I don't know if you are aware, but a good resource for links to Nikon information including reviews is www.NikonLinks.com. It is usually fairly up to date too.

A very interesting review from an outsider, as mentioned above by Yoni. I am sure the pixel peepers will be satisfied by the dpreview review.

The D200 high ISO NR is useless, and significantly softens the image. Nikon Capture 4.0 NR is also not up to much, at least in my tests, and looks like little more than a Gaussian blur.

 

Noise Ninja excellent, as long as you select the correct profile before doing the NR pass. I have no idea if NN is any better or worse than Dfine etc. If anyone can tell me, I would be grateful.

If you upgrade your camera to a more recent model introduced after you bought the Sigma flash, wouldn't you risk incompatibility between the flash and the camera? I believe that Sigma have to reverse engineer the signaling as Canon will not licence it to other manufacturers.

"I'm happy to see he proves that DX format does not change the depth of field as so many on this forum insist it does, rather it is in fact just a CROP and nothing more. Depth of field is determined by the focal length, not the format. In other words a 50mm lens will have identical depth of field no matter which camera it is mounted on, etc."

 

I suspect you have misunderstood what many people have said about DOF and DX versus FX formats. DOF is a function of F stop and image magnification. Change the format and you change the image magnification, as illustrated by BR, and others.

I would not have thought the 200mm micro would work well with a 2x converter. With the TC14A the results are not acceptable IMO. The 200mm micro does work well on tubes, but it can get rather unwieldly as you need a lot of extension to get a significant increase in magnification. You can put a diopter on the front, and results with the Nikon 3T are acceptable IMO.

 

Your best bet might be to reverse a 28mm F2.8 lens to get ~2x. These lenses are not expensive on ebay and elsewhere. You could also reverse a zoom lens to get a range of magnifications.

 

As others indicate, at 2x it is hard to position the camera, and frame the subject. You really need a macro focus plate. And patience.

For macro work the tripods from Benbo (not Benro) and Uniloc are excellent apart from the Benbo Trekker which is too light. They have a central bolt, allowing adjustment of the height without having to fiddle with each leg. You can even raise a leg above the horizontal, as for example when resting the tripod against a tree to photograph lichens.

 

There is a similar design from Gitzo, the Explorer, which is a bit slower to operate as you must release each leg. It comes in aluminium, carbon fibre and basalt flavours. Some think they are better than the Benros/Unilocs.

 

There are also a number of mini tripods from Uniloc, RRS and Kirk, so you could buy mini and full size units. But swapping the head would be a pain.

 

I would not recommend reversing the centre column. How do you operate an upside down camera?

Merritt Island as suggested is good but watch out for rocket launches, when they close down access. You walk along places where alligators roam, but the locals don't seem bothered so I guess they are not a danger.

 

There is also a place called something like Orange Springs to the north of Orlando where you can see Manatees.

 

The Everglades is fantastic but as stated a long drive.

"I believe you are better off in not attaching the small Nikon flashes to the AF lenses. Nikon even warns you that it could impair the AF motors."

 

I'm not sure I understand that statement. The R1 is compatible with all IF lenses which includes the 105mm F2.8 AFS VR. The R1 puts no strain on the focussing mechanics. It is also compatible with the 200mm micro (both versions).

 

However, Nikon do state that the R1 is NOT compatible with the 60mm micro without an adaptor. That is because the AF moves the front part of the lens to which the R1 would be attached. Using AF with the R1 would strain the AF motor in the camera, and possibly cause damage to the mechanics. However, manual focus works fine with the R1. Whether it will cause long term damage, or accelerated wear, to the focus mechanism is unclear.

 

I don't think the R1 will work very well with a reversed lens on the D200. That is because you will have to mount an adaptor on the rear of the reversed lens, and then attach the R1 ring. That all adds length, leaving little or no working distance to shoot the intended subject. You will have to check the working distance of the chosen combination of lenses.

 

The R1 is a nice piece of kit. But beware that the SB-200 units are low power, and not really suitable for non macro shooting (though they can serve that purpose). It is ideal for handheld photography of moving subjects such as insects, where it is impracticable to use a tripod (due to vegetation and time constraints).

 

The following photo of an active Drone Fly feeding on wild mint was taken using the R1 on a micro lens (60mm micro or 200mm):

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6572158

 

Why do you want to use flash if you are using a tripod? Surely natural light is preferable if possible.

 

Also don't dismiss the built in flash for fill lighting:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6572155

 

If you do intend to use an SB-800, you might want to try a diffuser. A panel cut from a milk carton is ideal, and produces a soft diffused light when lit from an on camera flash. Here is someone else's set up:

 

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/image/82449423

It's personal preference. You get the same effect with the saturation slider in Photoshop. I find Ken's colours way over the top.

I was suspicious that Nikon had been purposefully limiting supplies to keep prices high. The D200 was hard to get for a year or so, and when I tried to buy accessories such as an MC30 remote cord, I had to ring 20 shops before I found one. And I paid through the nose.

 

However, they seem to be making huge efforts to get lots of D300 into the shops, so I suspect the D3 'shortage' is not by design. It could well be that because it is effectively a new class of product for Nikon, demand will be sky high for some time to come. I think that was why D200 demand was so high for so long.

 

It is not easy to judge demand. Make too many, and you lose money. Make not enough and you do not make as much money as you could, and potential customers are upset.

What was the texture of the substance?

 

Slime moulds are as the name suggests soft, though they can become powdery with an outer 'crust' at maturity. Ganoderma fungi are rather tough and often large brackets.

For a general purpose macro lens I would choose the 105mm due to increased working distance. It's also easier to introduce lighting such as a macro flash.

 

The 600m micro lens has nice optics but the bokeh can be ugly.

 

The Tamron 90mm macro lens consistently performs well in reviews:

 

http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html

Is it a major upgrade? Yes, without doubt.

 

Will it cause a major upgrade to your photos? Depends on your use. Sometimes I wish I could upgrade the klutz behind the camera. ;)

Vivek: Thanks. I had not thought about near UV. I guess some lenses transmit more UV than others, and some are less well corrected for it. Looks like a UV filter is needed.

I sometimes see the same with a 28mm F2.8 AIS lens on a D200 at high contrast boundaries. I've seen it when photographing trees against a bright sky. So it is not just from lights with discrete spectral bands though that might be the explanation in the above cases.