Nikkor 200mm micro vs 60mm micro?

Hello Everyone,

I recently bought a 60mm Nikkor micro lens for my Nikon D50, and I love it.
I've taken some great pictures with it, but I've found the following (one of
which I had considered beforehand):

1) I have to get really close to reach minimal focal distance and thus
maximum image size on the detector (I considered this beforehand), and some
bugs are tough to sneak up on, and some stinging insects don't like me
getting to within several inches of them

2) to decrease my exposure times for hand-held shots, I'm keeping the lens
pretty much wide open, and, at or near minimal focal distance, my depth of
field is HORRIBLE. For example, the FRONT of a fly's eye is in focus, and
the BACK of a fly's eye is out of focus. I hadn't considered this before I
got the lens, so my recourse, for now, is to move back a little, or to shoot
from a tripod (when possible) so I can first stop down the lens (to increase
depth of focus a little) and not worry about image shake during the
now-longer exposure.

However, I've thought of perhaps upgrading to the 200mm Micro Nikkor. This
lens would let me be about 200/60 (around 3.3) times further away, I assume,
from my subject, to still achieve 1:1 image scale on the detector. However,
I'm wondering if I would get the ADDED benefit of not having such a tight
and critical focus issue, since a camera motion of a fraction of a
MILLIMETER might not cause my image to leave focus, and it might also help
with my depth of field issues at the same f-ratio. Am I correct on this
matter -- that, because I'd be more than 3 times further away from my
subject (to achieve the same image scale as with the 60mm), then a random
"hand wiggle" shift of "x" with the 200mm would only create 1/3 the
out-of-focus problem as it would with the 60mm?

I'm also considering upping my ISO to 400 or 800, since I shot almost
exclusively in pure manual mode, including manual focus, to help shorten my
exposure times.

Thanks for any help,
Scott

"Scott Speck" wrote in message
...
Hello Everyone,

I recently bought a 60mm Nikkor micro lens for my Nikon D50, and I love
it. I've taken some great pictures with it, but I've found the following
(one of which I had considered beforehand):

1) I have to get really close to reach minimal focal distance and thus
maximum image size on the detector (I considered this beforehand), and
some bugs are tough to sneak up on, and some stinging insects don't like
me getting to within several inches of them

2) to decrease my exposure times for hand-held shots, I'm keeping the lens
pretty much wide open, and, at or near minimal focal distance, my depth of
field is HORRIBLE. For example, the FRONT of a fly's eye is in focus, and
the BACK of a fly's eye is out of focus. I hadn't considered this before
I got the lens, so my recourse, for now, is to move back a little, or to
shoot from a tripod (when possible) so I can first stop down the lens (to
increase depth of focus a little) and not worry about image shake during
the now-longer exposure.

However, I've thought of perhaps upgrading to the 200mm Micro Nikkor.
This lens would let me be about 200/60 (around 3.3) times further away, I
assume, from my subject, to still achieve 1:1 image scale on the detector.
However, I'm wondering if I would get the ADDED benefit of not having such
a tight and critical focus issue, since a camera motion of a fraction of a
MILLIMETER might not cause my image to leave focus, and it might also help
with my depth of field issues at the same f-ratio. Am I correct on this
matter -- that, because I'd be more than 3 times further away from my
subject (to achieve the same image scale as with the 60mm), then a random
"hand wiggle" shift of "x" with the 200mm would only create 1/3 the
out-of-focus problem as it would with the 60mm?

I'm also considering upping my ISO to 400 or 800, since I shot almost
exclusively in pure manual mode, including manual focus, to help shorten
my exposure times.

Thanks for any help,
Scott

I went though the same decision and got the 60mm. The only advantage you
will have is yes, you will gain some distance if all you shoot is bugs and
the lens will lighten your wallet a bit. As for depth of field: This was
recently covered in a thread, and it turns out there is no difference in
depth of field at 1:1 regardless of the lens you use. I also feel that at
1:1 any movement will be the same as with the 60mm, and as you know, the
longer the lens the more the image will move in the frame when you move the
camera as you focus out.

Also, the lens is only f4, so if you want to use it as a portrait lens you
will lose the ability to throw the background out of focus (as much), and
the fact that you will really have to back away from your subject. A good
compromise might be the 105, and if you are having trouble holding the
camera steady the 105VR.

The 60 was a good fit into the lenses I already have, so my next comment
would be do you need a 200? If you've got the bucks, and bugs are your
thing, the 200 would be a great lens since you will rarely use anything
wider than f4 in a macro shot. For me, I just couldn't see getting another
200 when I've already got that covered in a zoom, and the 60 should make a
great portrait lens when you figure the 1.5x.

Thanks for the advice. Given the large expense of the 200, I'll stay where
I am. The 60 is also an awesome non-micro lens. Plus, I can borrow my
wife's 105. :-) And I already have an 80-400 mm zoom. If you're
interested, my latest dragonfly pics are at:

http://www.scottspeck.com/pictures/old8/index.html

The super-closeups were done with the 60mm and a 2X teleconverter, hand-held
(no tripod). The slightly more distant shots were done with my 400mm VR
lens (VR turned OFF since I was on a tripod) with the 2X teleconverter, for
a focal length of 800mm. For the super-closeups, I wasn't at minimum
distance, but perhaps 1.5 times min distance, making focusing easier.

As for the 200, if it would have allowed me to have 3 times the tolerance in
depth of focus, I might have considered it.

Thanks again,
Scott


I went though the same decision and got the 60mm. The only advantage you
will have is yes, you will gain some distance if all you shoot is bugs and
the lens will lighten your wallet a bit. As for depth of field: This was
recently covered in a thread, and it turns out there is no difference in
depth of field at 1:1 regardless of the lens you use. I also feel that at
1:1 any movement will be the same as with the 60mm, and as you know, the
longer the lens the more the image will move in the frame when you move
the camera as you focus out.

Also, the lens is only f4, so if you want to use it as a portrait lens you
will lose the ability to throw the background out of focus (as much), and
the fact that you will really have to back away from your subject. A good
compromise might be the 105, and if you are having trouble holding the
camera steady the 105VR.

The 60 was a good fit into the lenses I already have, so my next comment
would be do you need a 200? If you've got the bucks, and bugs are your
thing, the 200 would be a great lens since you will rarely use anything
wider than f4 in a macro shot. For me, I just couldn't see getting
another 200 when I've already got that covered in a zoom, and the 60
should make a great portrait lens when you figure the 1.5x.

According to Scott Speck :
Hello Everyone,

I recently bought a 60mm Nikkor micro lens for my Nikon D50, and I love it.
I've taken some great pictures with it, but I've found the following (one of
which I had considered beforehand):

1) I have to get really close to reach minimal focal distance and thus

[ ... too close to stinging bugs ... ]

2) to decrease my exposure times for hand-held shots, I'm keeping the lens

[ ... DOF too small ... ]

However, I've thought of perhaps upgrading to the 200mm Micro Nikkor. This

[ ... considered longer lens to solve problems ... ]

I'm also considering upping my ISO to 400 or 800, since I shot almost
exclusively in pure manual mode, including manual focus, to help shorten my
exposure times.

*This* will help you somewhat.

However, since you are shooting in manual mode anyway, I would
suggest that you try the slightly newer version of the 200mm f5.6
Medical Nikkor. This comes with a set of six screw-in close-up lenses,
used in sets of one or two -- never more, and rings on the barrel into
which you crank the ASA (yes, it is that old) and the magnification
ratio and it will set the aperture appropriately.

The big win for this is that it comes with a built-in ring
flash, so you get excellent illumination of your subjects.

The reason I suggest the slightly newer version is that the
first version had a choice of an AC-powered pack or a battery-powered
one which used batteries which are now *quite* expensive and hard to
find. *And* it only puts out full power -- unless you get the special
cable which allows reduced power. This is a problem only because the
flash is too bright to use at the closest settings (1X to 3X) with the
200 ISO minimum with the D70 and D50.

The newer one has a battery pack which will run from eight "D"
cells, thus reducing the cost of operation, and it has a switch to
reduce the flash intensity by a factor of 4, thus allowing operation
at the closest lens combinations.

With either -- you focus only by changing the camera-to-subject
distance.

Optically -- the two are the same -- but things like the
connectors on the cables between the power pack and the lens barrel
differ -- four pins on the old one, three on the new. (It also powers
four incandescent lamps placed behind the ring flash at 90 degree
intervals as a focusing and composition light.)

For your convenience, I'll type in the table of lens-to-subject
distances for the various magnifications:
Ratio CU lenses Lens-to-subject
================================================== ==========
1/15X 1:15 bare lens 10' 11.89" (3350mm)
1/8X 1:8 1/8 lens
1/6X 1:6 1/6 lens 5' 10.08" (1780mm)
1/4X 1:4 1/4 lens 4' 4.64" (1336mm)
1/3X 1:3 1/4 + 1/6 lens 2' 1.0" ( 890mm)
1/2X 1:2 1/2 lens 1' 5.56" ( 446mm)
2/3X 2:3 1/2 + 1/4 lens 1' 0.83" ( 326mm)
1X 1:1 1x lens 0' 8.70" ( 221mm)
1.5X 3:2 1X + 1/2X lens 0' 6.06" ( 154mm)
2X 2:1 2X 0' 4.25" ( 108mm)
3X 3:1 2X + 1X 0' 2.83" ( 72mm)

There is a chart on the lens barrel to indicate which lenses to
use in which order to achieve which magnification. In the newer one,
the lenses images are color anodized to match a colored paint ring in
a groove in the mount. All of the older ones are all black, so this is
one way to tell them apart on ebay or if you luck into one at a swap
meet. (The other is the 3-pin for the new flash power cable vs the
4-pin for the older one.

Note that there is another feature of this which will be useless
with a 1.5 crop factor body -- One of the rings allows you to set it to
record either a frame number or the magnification ratio in the bottom
right-hand corner -- but well out of the field of view on any 1.5 crop
factor sensor. There is also a setting to turn this off entirely. (The
older version had a ring to select the brightness of the annotation to
match the film's ASA, and one choice of this was "off".

To connect the flash sync you will need a Nikon AS-15 for the
top of a D70 or D50, which gives the standard PC connector. I've
checked the voltage at the flash sync terminals, and they are within the
range of voltages listed as safe for the D70 (and presumably for the D50
as well.)

Depth of field for the lens at 1:1 ratio is listed for each
apertu

f5.6 +0.013" -0.013"
f8 +0.018" -0.018"
f11 +0.025" -0.025"
f16 +0.037" -0.037"
f22 +0.051" -0.051"
f32 +0.073" -0.073"
f45 +0.104" -0.104"

The asymmetry at the smallest aperture shows at other ratios as
well. However, let's look at what apertures are really *practical* as a
function of the flash output and the ISO -- based on the built-in ring
calculator:

ISO 200, full flash power f45
ISO 200, 1/4 flash power f22
ISO 800, 1/4 flash power f45

So larger apertures don't come into the equation.

At 3X, to use f4.5 you need 1/4 power at ISO 300, or ISO 64 at full
power, which you can't do on a D70 or a D50.

You can use the rings "backwards" to see what ISO setting will
allow you to use the desired aperture (usually f45 for anything close).

Since these have not been made for a *long* time, you will need
to haunt eBay for one. I did -- to upgrade from the older version which
does not allow the 1/4 power flash output, but which I had used with a
Nikon F and Polaroid color slide film.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Scott Speck :
Hello Everyone,

I recently bought a 60mm Nikkor micro lens for my Nikon D50, and I love it.
I've taken some great pictures with it, but I've found the following (one of
which I had considered beforehand):

1) I have to get really close to reach minimal focal distance and thus

[ ... too close to stinging bugs ... ]

2) to decrease my exposure times for hand-held shots, I'm keeping the lens

[ ... DOF too small ... ]

However, I've thought of perhaps upgrading to the 200mm Micro Nikkor. This

[ ... considered longer lens to solve problems ... ]

I'm also considering upping my ISO to 400 or 800, since I shot almost
exclusively in pure manual mode, including manual focus, to help shorten my
exposure times.

*This* will help you somewhat.

However, since you are shooting in manual mode anyway, I would
suggest that you try the slightly newer version of the 200mm f5.6
Medical Nikkor. This comes with a set of six screw-in close-up lenses,
used in sets of one or two -- never more, and rings on the barrel into
which you crank the ASA (yes, it is that old) and the magnification
ratio and it will set the aperture appropriately.

The big win for this is that it comes with a built-in ring
flash, so you get excellent illumination of your subjects.

The reason I suggest the slightly newer version is that the
first version had a choice of an AC-powered pack or a battery-powered
one which used batteries which are now *quite* expensive and hard to
find. *And* it only puts out full power -- unless you get the special
cable which allows reduced power. This is a problem only because the
flash is too bright to use at the closest settings (1X to 3X) with the
200 ISO minimum with the D70 and D50.

The newer one has a battery pack which will run from eight "D"
cells, thus reducing the cost of operation, and it has a switch to
reduce the flash intensity by a factor of 4, thus allowing operation
at the closest lens combinations.

With either -- you focus only by changing the camera-to-subject
distance.

Optically -- the two are the same -- but things like the
connectors on the cables between the power pack and the lens barrel
differ -- four pins on the old one, three on the new. (It also powers
four incandescent lamps placed behind the ring flash at 90 degree
intervals as a focusing and composition light.)

For your convenience, I'll type in the table of lens-to-subject
distances for the various magnifications:
Ratio CU lenses Lens-to-subject
================================================== ==========
1/15X 1:15 bare lens 10' 11.89" (3350mm)
1/8X 1:8 1/8 lens
1/6X 1:6 1/6 lens 5' 10.08" (1780mm)
1/4X 1:4 1/4 lens 4' 4.64" (1336mm)
1/3X 1:3 1/4 + 1/6 lens 2' 1.0" ( 890mm)
1/2X 1:2 1/2 lens 1' 5.56" ( 446mm)
2/3X 2:3 1/2 + 1/4 lens 1' 0.83" ( 326mm)
1X 1:1 1x lens 0' 8.70" ( 221mm)
1.5X 3:2 1X + 1/2X lens 0' 6.06" ( 154mm)
2X 2:1 2X 0' 4.25" ( 108mm)
3X 3:1 2X + 1X 0' 2.83" ( 72mm)

There is a chart on the lens barrel to indicate which lenses to
use in which order to achieve which magnification. In the newer one,
the lenses images are color anodized to match a colored paint ring in
a groove in the mount. All of the older ones are all black, so this is
one way to tell them apart on ebay or if you luck into one at a swap
meet. (The other is the 3-pin for the new flash power cable vs the
4-pin for the older one.

Note that there is another feature of this which will be useless
with a 1.5 crop factor body -- One of the rings allows you to set it to
record either a frame number or the magnification ratio in the bottom
right-hand corner -- but well out of the field of view on any 1.5 crop
factor sensor. There is also a setting to turn this off entirely. (The
older version had a ring to select the brightness of the annotation to
match the film's ASA, and one choice of this was "off".

To connect the flash sync you will need a Nikon AS-15 for the
top of a D70 or D50, which gives the standard PC connector. I've
checked the voltage at the flash sync terminals, and they are within the
range of voltages listed as safe for the D70 (and presumably for the D50
as well.)

Depth of field for the lens at 1:1 ratio is listed for each
apertu

f5.6 +0.013" -0.013"
f8 +0.018" -0.018"
f11 +0.025" -0.025"
f16 +0.037" -0.037"
f22 +0.051" -0.051"
f32 +0.073" -0.073"
f45 +0.104" -0.104"

The asymmetry at the smallest aperture shows at other ratios as
well. However, let's look at what apertures are really *practical* as a
function of the flash output and the ISO -- based on the built-in ring
calculator:

ISO 200, full flash power f45
ISO 200, 1/4 flash power f22
ISO 800, 1/4 flash power f45

So larger apertures don't come into the equation.

At 3X, to use f4.5 you need 1/4 power at ISO 300, or ISO 64 at full
power, which you can't do on a D70 or a D50.

You can use the rings "backwards" to see what ISO setting will
allow you to use the desired aperture (usually f45 for anything close).

Since these have not been made for a *long* time, you will need
to haunt eBay for one. I did -- to upgrade from the older version which
does not allow the 1/4 power flash output, but which I had used with a
Nikon F and Polaroid color slide film.

Enjoy,
DoN.

The latest Medical Nikor is a 120mm, nice lens, the flash tube on my
unit just burned out and Nikon has no more replacements. With the 120
you only have 2 lenses, the main lens for 1:11 to 1:1 and an auxillary
lens for 1:1 - 2:1. The flash is much more automatic and linked to the
focusing. An adjustable collar sets the ISO. There is one floating
around Ebay for $1400 buy now, has been there for months and the store
hasn't dropped the price. A local dealer told me he sold one in
December 05 for $1K so that is about the going price. The old 200 is a
pain with all the lenses to keep track of all the lenses.

Both the 105 f2.8 Nikkor and the 200 f4 Nikkor are fine lenses, highly
recommended. Another lens to consider is the 150 f3.5(?) Sigma also
reported to be a good lens. For that matter all the 90-105mm lenses
from all the manufacturers are good too.

Depth of field is based on the magnification so any lens at 1:1 with
alage aperture will be tough, it is why there are macro flash systems.
Good Luck

Tom

"Scott Speck" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the advice. Given the large expense of the 200, I'll stay
where I am. The 60 is also an awesome non-micro lens. Plus, I can borrow
my wife's 105. :-) And I already have an 80-400 mm zoom. If you're
interested, my latest dragonfly pics are at:

http://www.scottspeck.com/pictures/old8/index.html


Looks like you made the right decision as some of those shots are awesome.

Three questions:

1. Was the fly in a natural setting, or did you put it in the fridge for
awhile?
2. What did the 2x converter do for you?
3. Did you use a flash or flashes?

Thanks for the good thoughts on the pictures. To answer your queries:

1) Everything was in a natural setting. It seems I've gotten good at slowly
walking up to flies/dragonflies and getting the front of my lens within 3 or
4 inches of their faces, and they don't flee.
2) The 2x teleconverter meant that the image looked twice as large as it
would, at a given distance from my target, than without it. Thus, at
minimal focal distance, I get an image scale of 2:1 instead of 1:1.
3) I used no flash. But yesterday I bought the Nikon closeup speedlight
commander kit R1C1, which will help with closeups in low light. Though, I'm
guessing that the moment I exercise the flash about 6" from the face of a
dragonfly, it'll flee the scene. :-)

Also, I'm shooting in JPEG mode, and I'm going to try RAW mode, to see if I
can get slightly better detail/contrast out of the RAW photos.

Scott


"Sheldon" wrote in message
. ..

"Scott Speck" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the advice. Given the large expense of the 200, I'll stay
where I am. The 60 is also an awesome non-micro lens. Plus, I can
borrow my wife's 105. :-) And I already have an 80-400 mm zoom. If
you're interested, my latest dragonfly pics are at:

http://www.scottspeck.com/pictures/old8/index.html


Looks like you made the right decision as some of those shots are awesome.

Three questions:

1. Was the fly in a natural setting, or did you put it in the fridge for
awhile?
2. What did the 2x converter do for you?
3. Did you use a flash or flashes?