bgorum

<p>Lighten up a little! The guy is obviously poking a little fun at all these often somewhat dubious user reviews. </p>

<p>Derek,<br>

I see you posted this same question on field herp forum. There is a post there by one of my friends that actually has a picture of me with my setup- http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1202. Maybe not exactly what you were looking for, but all I've got for now. As far as how I like the 70-180 micro- I love it, but I use it pretty much exclusively for close-ups. I really couldn't tell you how it works for anything further away than a few meters because I cant recall ever using it that way. Before owning the 70-180 I used an 80-200 f2.8 with the Nikon 5t and 6t and Pentax T132 diopters. The results were quite good, except at 200mm and close to minimum focus distance, which is a well known weak spot for the 80-200. You might want to try some good quality diopters on you 70-200 and see how you like that before you trade it for the 70-180.</p>

<p>Derek,<br>

I use a setup similar to yours, except that I use the 70-180 micro, and I shoot the same kinds of subjects. When using a single sb600 I use a Wimberly macro bracket to hold and position the flash. I attach the flash to the camera via an sc17 cord and I always have the 14mm diffuser out, just in case I don't have the flash aimed exactly as it should, (easy to do with moving subjects and constantly changing magnification,etc). I get very nicely exposed pictures with this setup at f16 and ISO 100. Here's a recent example:<img src="http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l313/bgorum/Gorum_100723_2273.jpg" alt="" /><br>

I'm not sure why you are getting underexposure. Are you using CLS? Not that that should make a difference. How are you positioning the flash? Maybe you could tell us a little more about your setup.</p>

<p>I think you can achieve very nice macro lighting with a single flash. Instead of buying the expensive R1 unit I would suggest you first try a good macro flash bracket (I like Wimberly's) with your SB800. When you have the flash really close to the subject it provides very even lighting. You can either use the Nikon CLS system or get a ttl cord. My experience has been that the ttl cord works a little better, especially if you are photographing animals. The pre-flashes when using cls seem to occur further apart from the actual flash than when using a cord and I have had lizards flinch and have had difficulty capturing calling frogs fully inflated vocal sacks because of the delay. I've never run into any problems with the minimum shooting distance with my flashes, (though I use the less powerful SB600s). I use the built in wide angle diffuser when doing macro with them. I would definitely not suggest you shoot everything at f22. Shoot at what ever aperture gives you the desired depth of field.</p>

<p>I've never used the 70-200 vrII or the Canon 500D close-up, so I cant speak to the performance of that combo. However, I did for many years use a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 plus Nikon 5t, 6t, and Pentax T132 diopter as my sole close-up kit, and I specialize in close-up work. A quality zoom plus a two element diopter can produce top notch results, however there are always caveats. For example with the Nikon 80-200 results near 200 mm were never as good as results at shorter focal lengths (corners especially, though centers were still good) and results with the lens set near it's own minimum focusing distance were never as good as results where the focus was set closer to infinity (towards the long end of the zoom range results were softer overall, results were fine at shorter focal lengths though). I've since replaced the 80-200 with a 70-180 micro and I find the micro much nicer to work with. It's performance at any focal length or focusing distance (for close-ups) is as good or better than the 80-200 was at it's best. I guess it all depends on what you want. If you buy a dedicated macro you will not need to worry about it's performance, however if you need to minimize the amount of equipment you are carrying and need to make one lens do many things, then the diopter on the zoom could be the ticket.</p>

<p>I had an interesting experience with my D200 recently that may or may not apply to your situation, but is an easy enough fix that you might as well go ahead and try it. My D200 was consistently underexposing with only one of my lenses. If I shot a series of photos of the same scene and switched lenses the difference was very obvious. I was perplexed, but at one point when I was switching lenses I noticed that one of the pins (the electrical contacts that face upwards when the lens is mounted and engage the electrical contacts just behind the top of the lens mount on the body) on the offending lens was stuck in the down position. I worked with it until it popped up and down freely then continued to use the lens, which continued to underexpose. However, when I got home I carefully cleaned all of the contacts on the lens and the camera, and that seemed to do the trick. I am no longer getting underexposure with that lens!</p>

<p>How about a 100-300 micro, constant f4, good at infinity and up close, good with 1.4x converter, first rate tripod collar. Might as well throw in vr, though I really wouldn't need it.<br>

Then a good dx ultrawide. Something between 10 and 14mm, minimum focusing distance of 6 inches, close- range correction, sharp out to the corners, and flare resistance at least as good as the current 12-24. It doesn't need to be fast, nor does it need vr.<br>

Of course both would be af-s like all recent lenses. Sigma? Tamron? Tokina? If Nikon wont do it is anyone else listening?</p>

<p>My experience doesn't really jive with the response above. I have the Wimberly bracket and an SB-600 and find it works just fine for outdoor subjects like calling frogs, (at least in regards to obtaining proper exposures). I do however sometimes have problems with the pre-flashes either startling my subjects, or causing a long enough delay between pressing the shutter release and taking the picture that I actually miss the action I was trying to photograph, (for instance I might press the shutter when a frog's vocal sack is fully inflated, but end up with a picture as it is beginning to deflate. I find that using an SC-17 cord eliminates much of the delay, (though I think the flash still emits pre-flashes, they seem to occur much closer to the actual exposure, so much so that I really never notice them).</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Edward thanks for the explanation about the two different ways of focusing a lens internally. I'll try to look up more information about that. I'm a science teacher, so learning how different things work is kind of a hobby. Dieter, good point about the 70-180 getting longer as you focus closer. My assertion that the 70-180 micro loses focal length with close focus is based on published data that indicate that the effective focal length at marked 180mm and closest focus is approximately 93mm. If I recall correctly my 105mm f2.8D micro also grew at minimum focus distance, but far less than the 105mm that it would have to grow if it focused by extension alone.</p>

<p>I was originally going to post this in response to this thread- <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VaUS">Not able to understand the problem mentioned with the Nikor 105 f2.8 macro at close distances</a>, but I thought it might be a little too off topic and I did not want to high-jack the OP's thread.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>While this topic is mostly just of academic interest to me it has perplexed me for a while and I started thinking about it again when all the hoopla over the new 70-200vr started. I used to own the 105mm f2.8D micro and noticed that it changed framing slightly with focus. However my 70-180 micro, which changes focal length considerably with focus, does not seem to change framing with focus. When I used to use an 80-200 f2.8D with diopters for close-up work it also did not seem to change framing with focus. In the case of the two 70-200vr lenses, both feature internal focus and both focus to about the same minimum distance, yet the later one apparently shortens it's focal length at minimum distance much more than the earlier one. I asked this question on another forum, but got no responses so I'll try it here. How is it that two lenses with the same focal length, focusing to the same distance, via the same method (internal focus) could end up with such different effective focal lengths and magnifications as the two 70-200vr lenses? And a related question- Why should one internal focusing macro lens (105mm f2.8D and apparently 105mm f2.8 VR),change framing with focus enough to actually be a problem (and I agree it is a problem) yet another (70-180 micro) internally focusing macro lens does not? I'm no expert in optics, but I would love to read a good explanation of all of this.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Bill</p>

 

 

<p>There are several possible issues here. As others have mentioned it could be a focusing issue. How far away was the target? The two ring 80-200 has a known issue with back focusing at 200mm and close to minimum focusing distance (mine certainly did)! It also could be a shutter speed issue. Even if you used a tripod if your shutter speed was in the 1/4-1/30th second range you could have unsharpness due to mirror vibration. As you stop down the lens the shutter speed gets slower and mirror vibration has less effect on the image. Finally if this was shot near the lens's minimum focusing distance, then you are using it where (in my experience) it is at it's worst. Even when carefully focused manually my copy was noticeably soft when used near 200mm and near minimum focusing distance, though it was fantastic anywhere else. I actually got noticeably sharper pictures with mine when it was focused at infinity with a Pentax T132 diopter on it than I did with it at minimum focusing distance, (magnification and working distance were nearly the same in either case).</p>

<p>Maybe I can fill in where R.R.J. Wiest left of since I've owned the Sigma 14mm f3.5, but have never used the Tamron 17. I thought the Sigma lens was a pretty good performer on film, except that it flared and ghosted terribly when shooting backlit subjects. The sun did not even need to be all that close to being in the frame to ruin photographs. Also, if you are planning on eventually moving to digital I thought the Sigma lens was really poor on digital cameras. It has pretty noticeable color fringing, the flare problem seems even worse than on film, and it never really seemed all that sharp on digital, (at least not on a Nikon D70s or D200). I cant explain why it should perform differently on digital than on film, but in my experience it does.</p>

<p>Have you contacted Nikon parts to see if they have the mount yet? I got a new mount for my 400mm f3.5 about a year ago from Nikon. In my case I had to also buy the light baffle that attaches to the mount. The reason was that my lens, which I purchased used had an AI mount on it when I bought it, even though according to the serial number and the orange minimum aperture and ADR numbers my lens is AIS. Apparently the baffle design was changed between the AI and AIS versions of the 400 f3.5, or perhaps the previous owner put a mount and baffle from another lens, (like the 300 f2.8), on my lens. As I recall the mount and the baffle were each about $40, which didn't seem unreasonable to me.</p>

<p>One of the really cool things about digital is that you do not need to worry about naming or filing digital images by subject. You can enter all the terms you might ever need to find a file as keywords and just name your files by date, (thats why you see lots of people using YYMMDD types of file names) and place them in folders chronologically. You will need a good cataloging program, (I like Microsoft Expression Media 2), but there are many others to choose from including Adobe Lightroom, or Apple Aperture if you are on a Mac. It really kind of requires a complete rethink of how image filing is done with film. I would strongly suggest you get ahold of "The DAM Book", by Peter Krough for a lot of good advice on doing what you want to do here.</p>

<p>Dieter, I use a 77 to 62mm step-down ring to mount the 5t and 6t to the 80-200. On a dx camera there is no vignetting at any focal length. In fact I leave the step-down ring permanently attached to the 80-200 and there is no vignetting at normal shooting distances either.<br>

The short working distance of the 70-180 micro is what kept me from buying the lens back in the days when I was shooting film and the 70-180 micro was available new. Now that I'm using digital the 1.5x magnification factor makes the 70-180 much more appealing to me, but it now commands much more money used than it cost brand new. If I ever find one in bargain condition with a reasonable price tag I will definitely snatch it up. In the mean time though I'm still hoping somebody can comment on the close-up performance of the Tamron 70-200.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies so far. As far as fixed focal length macro lenses go I've been there and done that. At one time I owned all three of Nikon's macros, (55, 105, and 200). The problem with them is that they are inconvenient to use on a tripod. Moving the tripod forward or back to get the precise framing I want will often scare away my subjects or totally change my perspective when I am working at ground level. I know fast zooms were not meant to be used for close-ups, but you would be amazed at the quality possible with the Nikon 80-200 with the two element diopters. Brian, I've been lusting after the Nikon 70-180 micro for a long time now. Unfortunately since Nikon discontinued that lens prices on used ones have skyrocketed. They consistently go for over $1500 on ebay now, which is more than I've got to invest now.</p>

<p>O.k., so I've read all of the reviews and am hoping to get some input based on first hand experience on this decision. I've been using a Nikon 80-200 f2.8(two ring, non-afs) along with Nikon 5t and 6t close-up lenses for macro work and am very pleased with the results from that combo. However, the lens has a minimum focus of 5 feet by itself and a maximum focus of about 30 inches when the 5t is added. This leaves me unable to focus between 30 inches and 5 feet and you would be surprised at how often I encounter situations where that is precisely where I need to focus. The new Tamron lens has a minimum focus of just under a meter and would appear to eliminate the "blind" spot in my current setup, as well as alleviating the need to use a diopter at all for many larger subjects. Most reviews of the Tamron lens rate it quite highly in terms of optical quality, but only two reviews that I have read mention its quality at minimum focus. Of those two one said it was good, the other said it was not so good. Neither review went into detail about what good or not good meant. Anyone out there using the Tamron lens that can comment about its performance when used up close? I would always be using this on a tripod and well stopped down for adequate depth of field, so I don't really care how it performs wide open. I'm also not bothered by the reported slow auto-focus of the lens since I would be focusing manually most of the time. How is the tripod collar? Does it have any play, or is it rock solid? I wish I could try out the lens myself, but unfortunately I don't know anyone who owns it and the local camera shops charge more than I am willing to pay for the lens, so I really can't try it out there. I appreciate any relevant experience you can share on this. Thanks.</p>

I use a Gitzo G1340 with an 80-200 and two element close-up lenses to shoot macro

and do not find the minimum height to be a problem at all. (I believe the G1340 and

3540 have very similar minimum heights). With shorter macro lenses I could see

the minimum height being an issue, but with my 80-200 I can shoot lizards and

snakes at what appears to be their eye level with no problems, (I will sometimes

drop the lens into the vertical slot and then use the tripod collar to rotate for a

horizontal if I need to get just a little lower). Since your 200 micro has even more

working distance than my zoom and diopters you should get an even smaller angle

from the ground than I do. I really prefer the gitzo solution to other tripods with horizontally placed center post, inverted center post, clamps that require me to

remove my ballhead, etc.

There is a small t-shaped part that engages a cog when you switch the lens to manual focus. The t-shaped piece is held in place only by a couple of very small melted plastic tabs. Both tabs on mine broke and I had great difficulty in getting the manual focus to engage. I repaired the t-shaped tab with JB Weld, but it is still not perfect. I sometimes have to press down in the region right over the t-shaped peice, (I've maked the focusing ring with white paint in the correct spot), in order to focus manually. You can peel back the rubber from the lense's focusing ring and then remove a sleeve that is held on with tape to see if the t-shaped peice is broken on your lens. My manual/automatic focus lock ring is also no longer locking, so I think it is time to send the lens into Nikon for repair. I'm really surprised Nikon used such cheap construction on this mechanism. Everytime I hear somebody refer to this lens as being "built like a tank" I just have to shake my head.

I'm not really familiar with the D40, but I bought a DK-21M for my D70s and I really like

it. The D70s viewfinder has pretty low magnification and it's a little like looking through

a tunnel. The DK-21M makes a big improvement in doing away with the tunnel effect.

One caution though, I don't wear glasses and with my eye squarely behind the finder

the very corners of the image are cut off. I imagine this effect would be even more

pronounced for eyeglass wearers.

I'm not familiar with the wildflower book you mention, but I did use the 75-300 with 5t

and 6t for many years and can attest to it's ability to produce beautiful pictures. However,

it really is not all that long. I forget the exact formula, but as I recall when you mount a

1.5 diopter close-up lens like the 5t on a 300mm lens you end up with an effective focal length somewhere in the neighborhood of 180-200mm. There are lots of off the shelf

macro lenses in that range. By contrast, if you add a pn-11 tube to a 300 f4 you end up

with an effective focal length of approximately 350mm, lots more working distance, and an

even narrower angle of view. The 300 plus pn-11 is a killer combo for wary lizards or

other small critters by the way. So is the 400 f3.5 with tubes, but it lacks the portability necessary to be a really good field option. Hope that is of some use to you.<div></div>

"PS ever notice the longer you dont have anything inspiring to photograph the more time

you spend perusing places-that-want-to-sell-you-stuff and discovering things you

absolutely-must-have-now-and-cannot-see-how-you-could-have-done-without-

before?"

 

I had to laugh when I read this. I'm in the same boat as you are, I do very little shooting in

the winter. So I waste lots of time rethinking my equipment line up, sell some stuff on

ebay and replace it with different stuff. The funny thing is that once spring arrives I get

back out and start shooting and tend to be pretty happy with what ever combination of

new/old gear I've got. Go figure!

A couple months ago I asked a question about getting my Gitzo Studex Performance 320 tripod repaired

and possibly buying a GT3530LSV. Thanks to the helpful responses of forum members I sent my tripod

into Bogen. Bogen has informed me that my tripod cannot be repaired as parts are no longer

manufactured for it. However, they are offering me a 35% discount on any new tripod of my choice. I had

pretty much decided that the 3530LSV would be my next tripod, but while I was waiting to here from

Bogen, (I eventually had to call them), I did some research on tripods and now have a concern about the

carbon fiber tripods. That concern is how durable are they? I shoot mostly reptiles and amphibians and

often use my tripod with the legs spread out flat to get down at my subject's eye level. This results in the

tripod legs often rubbing up against rocks and other abrasive materials. The legs of my 320 were well

scratched up after 20 years of this sort of use. Will carbon fiber stand up to being frequently rubbed

against rocks or would I be better off getting an aluminum G1340, even if it means carrying a heavier

tripod?

 

Thanks, Bill

I thought I would add an update and further question to this thread. I sent the 320 into

Bogen and they said that the tripod could not be repaired because parts are no longer

made for it. They are offering me a 35% discount on any new tripod.

Now for the question. During the time I was waiting to hear from Bogen, (I finally ended

up having to call them), I did a lot of research on tripods and I now have one concern

about the carbon fiber tripods like the 3530lsv. That concern is how durable are they? I

shoot mostly reptiles and amphibians and often use my tripod with the legs spread out flat

to get down at my subject's eye level. This results in the tripod legs often rubbing up

against rocks and other abrasive materials. The legs of my 320 were well scratched up

after 20 years of this sort of use. Will carbon fiber stand up to being frequently rubbed

against rocks or would I be better off getting an aluminum G1340, even if it means

carrying a heavier tripod?

 

Thanks,

Bill

Thanks for the replies everyone. I think I'll send the tripod into Bogen and get an estimate

from them. I'd love to take advantage of the trade in offer, but it appears that offer does not

apply to tripods that were discontinued more than five years ago.