Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

At a cost of roughly $1800, it is out of many people's budgets

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Most macro-photographers view subject, compose, and focus wide open (f/2.8 on Nikkor 105), which is a lot easier than trying the same at exposure apertures of f/8, f/11, or f/16. And when extension tubes are added, maximum aperture is further reduced.

The Nikkor 200-mm f/4 macro is a fine lens, but is half-stop darker, and twice the price.
Longer WD is the greatest advantage of the 200-mm macro.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

[quote=GoofyNewfie]
Speaking of China, Ken Rockwell went on a rant in a recent column. Businesses are having manufacturing done in China to save production costs. Eventually, China will be doing so much of the world's manufacturing, that they will be able to nationalize all those factories and dictate prices to the rest of the world.

Ken commented on a new Nikon lens being made in China, and he was reluctant to spend his money on a product made in communist China, when there are alternatives.

Interesting idea.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Think I paid a bit over $1400, was well worth the cost.
My theory is if you can afford $900 you can save a bit longer, but the 105 being a fine lens go for it.
was only a suggestion.
I also have the 60mm 2.8 which I used for a couple of years and don't ever remember using or needing that extra half stop for macro work. While the 105-vr would be nice, I can't hand hold much of anything these days (tripod only).

jsleszynski Loc: Overland Park, Kansas

I have the nikon AF-S 105mm micro and love it. The working distance is good and the AF is fast enough to get pic of butterflies and insects. I also use Canon 500D diopter on my AF-S 70-300mm VR and that works well too.

tinusbum Loc: east texas

i think most macro lenses are good,i have read its hard to find a bad one.i think nikon users are a little more proud of their's than most.i use a sigma 150 macro and i belive its just as good.tom

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

Tripods are fine if the subject is still, but sometimes you have to shoot without to deal with a subject in motion. The attached shot was taken without tripod, and required a little dance, (and about 10 shots.) It sits on the dividing line between closeup and macro, as I increased my distance enough to have some depth of field, and cropped accordingly.

Flower moving in wind (D800 & AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF ED VR)

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

I have shot many images without a tripod using a flash and handholding the camera. The one thing that I have never done is to crop a macro or close up image. I dont want to get into a winded debate as to which technique is which and who does the best work. The fact is that a true macro image should not be cropped they should be shot as is. In a lot of instances what people think of as macro isnt really macro, just close up. I am very much a purist and this is the way I shoot and think.

country Loc: back woods

nobody answered the question, "what is the difference between close up and macro"...

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

close up is just that, a closer image then normal. Macro is usually done with a true macro lens that has a 1-1 capability. this means that the image size that is recorded on the film or sensor is the same size as it is in life. This is known as 1-1 reproduction. A true macro lens is also a flat field lens and that is the ability to reproduce a flat field such as a piece of newspaper taped to a wall from edge to edge with complete sharpness. Also true macro images are not cropped images. Many people shoot macro type images from farther away and they crop the images in to the subject but this is cheating, a true macro image is an image that has been shot as a macro mode.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Here are a few Frequently Asked Questions & Answers Concerning Macro: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-36372-1.html

You can bookmark this FAQ, and others, for future reference.

brianjdavies Loc: Gloucester

The 200 mm is my dream macro lens, but I'm really not into true macrophotography, just close-up work, so I'll just have to accept that what I got is more than I really need.

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

When I look at an image it is the aesthetic that I am concerned with, not whether a particular dogma is being literally adhered to. So whether the photographer "cheated" by cropping, (to take advantage of a greater depth of field in less than ideal circumstances), or tripod mounted and shot his macro lens only at 1:1 is not terribly important, (to me).

One of the great advantages of a high density sensor, (like the D800) is the ability to "cheat" one's way around the limitations to obtain a good image. Would a tripod mount and 1:1 shooting have obtained a better image if the wind factor was not their, yes. But the wind was there, and with florals in the wild, that will always be a factor.

brianjdavies Loc: Gloucester

When does photography become macrophotography? The official definition is when the subject is reproduced to the same size on the film or sensor, i.e, a 1:1 ratio. But this isn't really terribly relevant, when you come to think more deeply about it. Back in the days of yore when cameras often took 10" x 8" photographs, an image of anything from a baby's head down could qualify as a "macro" photograph under this definition. Now, with sensors being much smaller, a baby's eye would fill the sensor. So, the size of the sensor is much more relevant to what you can include on it.

And anyway, is macrophotography a misnomer? Macro comes from the Greek "makros" meaning large. What exeactly is "large" here. Certainly not the subject, which must be small if it is to be reproduced full size on the itty bitty sensor of even a full frame camera. And when does macrophotography become microphotography? I bet there's some definition for that somewhere. Nikon deem their lenses "micro Nikkors" which they most certainly aren't. And many so-called macro lenses cannot reproduce subjects full size without the use of extension tubes or some such additional equipment.

I guess what I am saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up with the pourists' definition of what macrophotography is or isn't. The image on the sensor should be exactly the size that it needs to be to produce a good photograph, and if it needs cropping, then so be it. A lens is just a means to an end - that of recording a satisfactory image for potserity, or whatever.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

What is potserity?