Nikon macro lens recommendations

On Jan 16, 11:14 am, Troy Piggins wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.]
* Rita Berkowitz is quoted & my replies are inline below :

Troy Piggins wrote:

I have a friend who wants to purchase a macro lens. I don't
think he's new to macro photography, but /is/ new to macro. He
asked me for recommendations on some lenses but I only have
experience with Canons. (Please don't make this into a Nikon vs
Canon thing, I just need some advice to pass on)

It depends on what he wants to photograph. If he's making document type
copies on a stand he's be better suited to get a 60mm f/2.8D AF. It's also
good for portrait on APS-C, but is a bit too sharp. For insects it has a
lot less working distance than the 105.

He won't be making commercial type stuff, and don't think he has
a tripod. Think he's interested in insects etc after he saw a
couple of mine.

If he doesn't want to spend that much money, about $400 USD he can get a
105mm f/2.8D AF. It's a really nice lens and has a nice working distance
for insect. It's slightly slower in AF than the newer 105/2.8VR. But who
uses AF with macro work?

Exactly. The AF on my Canon 100mm is slow, but doesn't matter
with MF.

I'll look into that lens above. But if it's older, will it be
second-hand only?

Than you have the latest 105/2.8VR. It's also a nice lens. AF is slightly
faster than the older version and the optical and image quality are about
the same as the older version. The bokeh is slightly better on the VR
version. It's also a bit more expensive than the AF-D version. Again, if
he's only using the lens for macro he might want the older one. I keep AF
and VR off for macro work. It's a great portrait lens with sweet bokeh, but
it can be overly sharp for portrait work. It does work great optically with
a 2X TC, but AF is a bit slower and hunts more.

I haven't tried Sigma, but a lot of people love their 105. If he's not in
that much of a hurry he should be able to get a good deal on eBay. He won't
go wrong with any of the Nikkors, my favorites are the 105s.

Ok, thanks for your input.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

Canon make a nice enough add-on element to turn just about any of
their halfway decent lenses into macro mode. Pixel Pix used one to
shoot a tiny crab a while back that looked OK at it's web size.
Another pair of good performers is Tamron's 100mm and 90mm F2.8 Macro
lenses which are reportedly sharper than canon's 100mm macro. They are
certainly a lot cheaper!

If commercial work is not the goal, there is plenty of value in "close
up" screw-in filter elements from Hoya. Rodenstock - the Rayban
people also make some nice add-on elements (if you have the cash) and
there is nothing at all wrong with an auto extension tube behind a
good lens either. I'd stay away from the non-auto variety if possible.

For about $50 or less you can get a decent close-up filter. It might
be all your friend needs. $200 will get an element set from Canon
(something with 500 in it's name). Buying a whole lens is a pretty big
leap up from there. You missed out with me, I just traded in a load of
Canon lenses. A hardly used macro was part of it!

D-MAC

On Jan 15, 8:14 pm, Troy Piggins wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.]
* Rita Berkowitz is quoted & my replies are inline below :

Troy Piggins wrote:

I have a friend who wants to purchase a macro lens. I don't
think he's new to macro photography, but /is/ new to macro. He
asked me for recommendations on some lenses but I only have
experience with Canons. (Please don't make this into a Nikon vs
Canon thing, I just need some advice to pass on)

It depends on what he wants to photograph. If he's making document type
copies on a stand he's be better suited to get a 60mm f/2.8D AF. It's also
good for portrait on APS-C, but is a bit too sharp. For insects it has a
lot less working distance than the 105.

He won't be making commercial type stuff, and don't think he has
a tripod. Think he's interested in insects etc after he saw a
couple of mine.

If he doesn't want to spend that much money, about $400 USD he can get a
105mm f/2.8D AF. It's a really nice lens and has a nice working distance
for insect. It's slightly slower in AF than the newer 105/2.8VR. But who
uses AF with macro work?

Exactly. The AF on my Canon 100mm is slow, but doesn't matter
with MF.

I'll look into that lens above. But if it's older, will it be
second-hand only?

Than you have the latest 105/2.8VR. It's also a nice lens. AF is slightly
faster than the older version and the optical and image quality are about
the same as the older version. The bokeh is slightly better on the VR
version. It's also a bit more expensive than the AF-D version. Again, if
he's only using the lens for macro he might want the older one. I keep AF
and VR off for macro work. It's a great portrait lens with sweet bokeh, but
it can be overly sharp for portrait work. It does work great optically with
a 2X TC, but AF is a bit slower and hunts more.

I haven't tried Sigma, but a lot of people love their 105. If he's not in
that much of a hurry he should be able to get a good deal on eBay. He won't
go wrong with any of the Nikkors, my favorites are the 105s.

Ok, thanks for your input.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.


The good news is all of the macro lenses currently on the market are
very good, major brand or off brand. The shorter macros aren't very
good for live subjects as you have to get very close to get any
magnification. The rule of thumb is the subject has to be the focal
length of the lens from the front element. So you are looking at 2+
inches for a 60 and a little under 5 inches for a 105, while this is a
basic lens the current lens design allows the current macros to break
this rule. But basicly longer the lens the farther away you can get
from the subject. The best compromise is the 90-105 lenses. If your
friend has a Canon I would recommend getting a Canon or a 3rd party
lens in Canon configuration, buying a Nikon for a Canon works via
adaptor but you loose the functionality of the lens for normal work.
Unless they are very familiar with photography having a pure manual
lens maybe more of a frustration than a help. Also none of the lenses
seem to be that much better than others in the group to put up with a
purly manual lens.
If your friend just wants to shoot flowers Canon makes excellent multi
element add on lenses, they work best with telephoto lenses.

Tom

On 2008-01-15 19:53:53 -0700, Troy Piggins said:

* frederick is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Troy Piggins wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.]
* Rita Berkowitz is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Troy Piggins wrote:

I have a friend who wants to purchase a macro lens. I don't
think he's new to macro photography, but /is/ new to macro. He
asked me for recommendations on some lenses but I only have
experience with Canons. (Please don't make this into a Nikon vs
Canon thing, I just need some advice to pass on)
It depends on what he wants to photograph. If he's making document type
copies on a stand he's be better suited to get a 60mm f/2.8D AF. It's also
good for portrait on APS-C, but is a bit too sharp. For insects it has a
lot less working distance than the 105.

He won't be making commercial type stuff, and don't think he has
a tripod. Think he's interested in insects etc after he saw a
couple of mine.

Then even longer than 105mm is better.
The Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG HSM macro seems to be a terrific lens, with
great user reports, and excellent (unsurpassed?) optical performance
test results on photozone.
The extra focal length gives greater working distance, HSM ring motor
means instant auto-focus override by turning the MF ring.
Price is less than a Nikkor 105, and 150mm will be better for insect shots.
He will probably need a tripod. Hopefully also at least a D80 or
better with shutter release delay option. Lesser Nikon dslrs have no
shutter release delay and/or mlu mode, and so often with macro, usable
exposure puts shutter speed in the range (~ 1/60 - 1/2 second) where
mirror slap is a real problem. Sigma 150, or other macro lens with
integral tripod mount improves this considerably.

Thanks frederick.

I'll mention the 150mm to him, see what he says about price.

About the tripod. I've never used a tripod for insects, and
struggle to see how you could use one effectively for moving
insects walking over leaves that are swaying in the breeze.
Manual focus and move body back and forth to fine-tune the focus.
Fast shutter speeds and flash are the way I handle that. I was
going to recommend he look into extl flash before tripods.

I sympathize. I draw a distinction between the pursuit of moving
targets (this includes those which don't "ambulate" but are moved by
wind and other forces of nature) on the one hand and "true macro" on
the other. For the latter category it's hard to beat a dedicated macro
setup built around a bellows, and Nikon's PB-6 with a 105/4.0 or a
reversed 28 is hard to beat. For prowling without a tripod, one DOES
NOT need a Micro-Nikkor. If you like the 105 VR for its multi-finction
utility (and I do!), that's great, but I wouldn't buy one just because
it has the word Micro in it's name. Ever seen the Zoom Micro? It's a
superb lens, and it has plenty of uses besides close-up photography. I
consider mine the best (MF) zoom I've ever owned. I'd sell my house
before I'd sell my Zoom Micro.

Sorry about the digression. For handheld close-ups, here are my suggestions:
1. decide how you will light the subject.
This might seem like a dumb first consideration, but it isn't If you
will shoot natural light 90% of the time, get a sharp and fast prime
lens. MF lenses like the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/1.8 or (if
you have the budget) 28/1.4 will be just the ticket. Don't be afraid to
buy a used manual Nikkor. If it hasn't been abused (this includes
improper cleaning as well as trauma from impact) it will be passed on
to your kids who can then sell it on eBay=^)
If you will use flash most of the time, consider a ringlight setup and
dedicate a lens to it. There are Speedlights which can be adjusted to
simulate flat product (studio) lighting to "fake natural" light to
everything in between. This path doesn't require a particularly fast
lens, and with some education yields beautiful results, but I can't see
where it would appeal to the same person who buys a D40.

2. automatic anything is next to useless in "real" macro (greater than
life size) photography, but AF can be perfect for "prowling" close-ups.
Don't be a snob about AF zooms. Once you master AF, you can work fast
without having the camera "choose" the wrong subject to focus on. Even
low-priced "kit lenses are capable of fine close-ups, but if you don't
know which AF sensor you've selected, or how to follow focus, you can't
buy sharpness for any price.
Don't forget that AF lenses can be focused manually. I find myself
switching off the AF quite a bit, and it's one of the best lessons I've
learned about AF lenses. I had several zooms that i almost got rid of
until I found out that they are fine optics when used in MF mode.

3. telephoto lenses are all good at close-ups.
This may be counter-intuitive, but as long as you can hold them steady
enough, long lenses produce stunning results in situations which seem
to dictate a "macro" lens. Little critters aren't intimidated by your
intrusion when the working distance is greater. This is usually a
tripod moment, but see how close you can get with that 200 or 300. If
nothing else, it's good practice for steady holding.
--
A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is
one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.
Sidney J. Harris

* Serge Desplanques is quoted & my replies are inline below :
On 2008-01-15 19:53:53 -0700, Troy Piggins said:

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 34 lines snipped |=---]
Thanks frederick.

I'll mention the 150mm to him, see what he says about price.

About the tripod. I've never used a tripod for insects, and
struggle to see how you could use one effectively for moving
insects walking over leaves that are swaying in the breeze.
Manual focus and move body back and forth to fine-tune the focus.
Fast shutter speeds and flash are the way I handle that. I was
going to recommend he look into extl flash before tripods.

I sympathize. I draw a distinction between the pursuit of moving
targets (this includes those which don't "ambulate" but are moved by
wind and other forces of nature) on the one hand and "true macro" on
the other. For the latter category it's hard to beat a dedicated macro
setup built around a bellows, and Nikon's PB-6 with a 105/4.0 or a
reversed 28 is hard to beat. For prowling without a tripod, one DOES
NOT need a Micro-Nikkor. If you like the 105 VR for its multi-finction
utility (and I do!), that's great, but I wouldn't buy one just because
it has the word Micro in it's name. Ever seen the Zoom Micro? It's a
superb lens, and it has plenty of uses besides close-up photography. I
consider mine the best (MF) zoom I've ever owned. I'd sell my house
before I'd sell my Zoom Micro.

Sorry about the digression. For handheld close-ups, here are my suggestions:
1. decide how you will light the subject.
This might seem like a dumb first consideration, but it isn't If you
will shoot natural light 90% of the time, get a sharp and fast prime
lens. MF lenses like the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 105/1.8 or (if
you have the budget) 28/1.4 will be just the ticket. Don't be afraid to
buy a used manual Nikkor. If it hasn't been abused (this includes
improper cleaning as well as trauma from impact) it will be passed on
to your kids who can then sell it on eBay=^)
If you will use flash most of the time, consider a ringlight setup and
dedicate a lens to it. There are Speedlights which can be adjusted to
simulate flat product (studio) lighting to "fake natural" light to
everything in between. This path doesn't require a particularly fast
lens, and with some education yields beautiful results, but I can't see
where it would appeal to the same person who buys a D40.

2. automatic anything is next to useless in "real" macro (greater than
life size) photography, but AF can be perfect for "prowling" close-ups.
Don't be a snob about AF zooms. Once you master AF, you can work fast
without having the camera "choose" the wrong subject to focus on. Even
low-priced "kit lenses are capable of fine close-ups, but if you don't
know which AF sensor you've selected, or how to follow focus, you can't
buy sharpness for any price.
Don't forget that AF lenses can be focused manually. I find myself
switching off the AF quite a bit, and it's one of the best lessons I've
learned about AF lenses. I had several zooms that i almost got rid of
until I found out that they are fine optics when used in MF mode.

3. telephoto lenses are all good at close-ups.
This may be counter-intuitive, but as long as you can hold them steady
enough, long lenses produce stunning results in situations which seem
to dictate a "macro" lens. Little critters aren't intimidated by your
intrusion when the working distance is greater. This is usually a
tripod moment, but see how close you can get with that 200 or 300. If
nothing else, it's good practice for steady holding.

Thankyou so much for the detailed explanation and advice.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

* tomm42 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
On Jan 15, 8:14 pm, Troy Piggins wrote:
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 40 lines snipped |=---]
I haven't tried Sigma, but a lot of people love their 105.
If he's not in that much of a hurry he should be able to get
a good deal on eBay. He won't go wrong with any of the
Nikkors, my favorites are the 105s.

Ok, thanks for your input.

The good news is all of the macro lenses currently on the market are
very good, major brand or off brand. The shorter macros aren't very
good for live subjects as you have to get very close to get any
magnification. The rule of thumb is the subject has to be the focal
length of the lens from the front element. So you are looking at 2+
inches for a 60 and a little under 5 inches for a 105, while this is a
basic lens the current lens design allows the current macros to break
this rule. But basicly longer the lens the farther away you can get
from the subject. The best compromise is the 90-105 lenses.

That's what I was thinking.

If your
friend has a Canon I would recommend getting a Canon or a 3rd party
lens in Canon configuration, buying a Nikon for a Canon works via
adaptor but you loose the functionality of the lens for normal work.

No, no. I think you misread something there. I have a Canon and
already have a macro setup. My friend has a Nikon and is asking
me for recommendations on macro lenses for his camera.

Unless they are very familiar with photography having a pure manual
lens maybe more of a frustration than a help. Also none of the lenses
seem to be that much better than others in the group to put up with a
purly manual lens.
If your friend just wants to shoot flowers Canon makes excellent multi
element add on lenses, they work best with telephoto lenses.

Thanks.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

* D...Mac is quoted & my replies are inline below :
On Jan 16, 11:14 am, Troy Piggins wrote:
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 40 lines snipped |=---]
I haven't tried Sigma, but a lot of people love their 105.
If he's not in that much of a hurry he should be able to get
a good deal on eBay. He won't go wrong with any of the
Nikkors, my favorites are the 105s.

Ok, thanks for your input.

Canon make a nice enough add-on element to turn just about any of
their halfway decent lenses into macro mode. Pixel Pix used one to
shoot a tiny crab a while back that looked OK at it's web size.
Another pair of good performers is Tamron's 100mm and 90mm F2.8 Macro
lenses which are reportedly sharper than canon's 100mm macro. They are
certainly a lot cheaper!

If commercial work is not the goal, there is plenty of value in "close
up" screw-in filter elements from Hoya. Rodenstock - the Rayban
people also make some nice add-on elements (if you have the cash) and
there is nothing at all wrong with an auto extension tube behind a
good lens either. I'd stay away from the non-auto variety if possible.

For about $50 or less you can get a decent close-up filter. It might
be all your friend needs. $200 will get an element set from Canon
(something with 500 in it's name). Buying a whole lens is a pretty big
leap up from there. You missed out with me, I just traded in a load of
Canon lenses. A hardly used macro was part of it!

I have the macro gear. It's my friend I'm asking about andhe has
Nikon D40X. Think you misread something in my OP.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...

Just checked. It's a D40X camera.

Ah, then that limits you to AFS-type lenses. So, for example, the Nikon
60mm and 200mm macro lenses will not autofocus with that camera, but the
105mm will.
Don't know about the Sigma.

"Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...

Just checked. It's a D40X camera.

Ah, then that limits you to AFS-type lenses. So, for example, the Nikon
60mm and 200mm macro lenses will not autofocus with that camera, but the
105mm will.
Don't know about the Sigma.


Surely anyone with even the most basic level of competence will not
only be able to focus a macro lens manually, but would choose to?

I cannot imagine ever using AF for macro work.

* Andrew Koenig is quoted & my replies are inline below :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...

Just checked. It's a D40X camera.

Ah, then that limits you to AFS-type lenses. So, for example, the Nikon
60mm and 200mm macro lenses will not autofocus with that camera, but the
105mm will.
Don't know about the Sigma.

Thanks. I'll check on that.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.

* Tony Polson is quoted & my replies are inline below :
"Andrew Koenig" wrote:

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...

Just checked. It's a D40X camera.

Ah, then that limits you to AFS-type lenses. So, for example, the Nikon
60mm and 200mm macro lenses will not autofocus with that camera, but the
105mm will.
Don't know about the Sigma.

Surely anyone with even the most basic level of competence will not
only be able to focus a macro lens manually, but would choose to?

I cannot imagine ever using AF for macro work.

I know. I never have. You only have to try it once or twice and
see how pointless it is.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.