Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Recommendation on Micro Lens
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
Oct 12, 2017 20:18:41   #
NathanG Loc: Atlanta
 
This is my first topic since I joined. I just posted in the new member section introducing myself. My current equipment is a new Nikon D500 with Nikon 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and 55-300 4.5-5.6. I am retired and are spending more time pursuing my hobby of pictures. Mainly been shooting sports (football, baseball, tennis, band and color guard) and family/kids/grand kids pictures but now venturing into landscapes and first time into Micro for flowers and other close-up items . I would like some recommendation on micro lenses as this is a new area for me. I have done some research and talked with a few and one lenses recommended was the Nikon 105 2.8 Micro. Any thoughts on this one or others. Thanks for your help.

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 20:24:19   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
NathanG wrote:
This is my first topic since I joined. I just posted in the new member section introducing myself. My current equipment is a new Nikon D500 with Nikon 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and 55-300 4.5-5.6. I am retired and are spending more time pursuing my hobby of pictures. Mainly been shooting sports (football, baseball, tennis, band and color guard) and family/kids/grand kids pictures but now venturing into landscapes and first time into Micro for flowers and other close-up items . I would like some recommendation on micro lenses as this is a new area for me. I have done some research and talked with a few and one lenses recommended was the Nikon 105 2.8 Micro. Any thoughts on this one or others. Thanks for your help.
This is my first topic since I joined. I just pos... (show quote)


I use an older Nikkor 105 "D" micro. I have been happy with it for many years. A recent shot with this lens.
Keep in mind that on the D500 it is close to an equivalent 160 on a 35mm camera.

--



Reply
Oct 12, 2017 20:34:57   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
NathanG wrote:
This is my first topic since I joined. I just posted in the new member section introducing myself. My current equipment is a new Nikon D500 with Nikon 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and 55-300 4.5-5.6. I am retired and are spending more time pursuing my hobby of pictures. Mainly been shooting sports (football, baseball, tennis, band and color guard) and family/kids/grand kids pictures but now venturing into landscapes and first time into Micro for flowers and other close-up items . I would like some recommendation on micro lenses as this is a new area for me. I have done some research and talked with a few and one lenses recommended was the Nikon 105 2.8 Micro. Any thoughts on this one or others. Thanks for your help.
This is my first topic since I joined. I just pos... (show quote)

I’ll get some flak for this, but unless you’re photographing flat copy or artwork, a macro lens is a waste of money. For flowers and other closeups, extension tubes will be fine. I personally use mostly prime lenses, but sometimes use an 80-200 f/2.8 lens with low-dispersion glass with tubes for up to about 1:2 on full-frame cameras with excellent results in the field. A macro lens is more convenient to use, of course.

Reply
 
 
Oct 12, 2017 20:51:19   #
NathanG Loc: Atlanta
 
Thanks for the response. A very interesting angle, never thought of that approach. Thanks!

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 21:08:01   #
Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC
 
Nathan I have and cherish the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D for it's light weight and optical excellence... Currently this is likely your best value/worth "Macro" for the D500 DX crop body...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/393446-REG/Tokina_ATXAF100PRON_100mm_f_2_8_AT_X_M100.html

This is an excellent portrait lens also on a DX crop body especially since it's f/2.8...
Certainly as fast as it's rivals and half the price...

That said, if you are doing serious commercial work then the AF 200mm f/4D IF ED is hands down your best choice... For beauty work this lens is unsurpassed in my humble estimation... However it is pricey however can be had as a previously owned from KEH at considerable savings...

As for Extension Tubes? If you have a 50mm prime they will get you there... And are the most cost effective route into macro/micro...

Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey Nathan...

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 21:14:51   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
If you really want t shoot at 1:1, get a macro lens.... extension tubes are fine for close ups.... but you will not get the same IQ using them with zoom lenses. Go to the macro forum and look at the real world of macrophotography. All of those guys use macro lenses. I do feel, however, that the brand makes less difference than it used to. Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron all make competitive lenses.

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 21:29:03   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
NathanG wrote:
This is my first topic since I joined. I just posted in the new member section introducing myself. My current equipment is a new Nikon D500 with Nikon 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and 55-300 4.5-5.6. I am retired and are spending more time pursuing my hobby of pictures. Mainly been shooting sports (football, baseball, tennis, band and color guard) and family/kids/grand kids pictures but now venturing into landscapes and first time into Micro for flowers and other close-up items . I would like some recommendation on micro lenses as this is a new area for me. I have done some research and talked with a few and one lenses recommended was the Nikon 105 2.8 Micro. Any thoughts on this one or others. Thanks for your help.
This is my first topic since I joined. I just pos... (show quote)


The Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro is the one I use.
There is a Macro Photography forum section http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-102-1.html and a Close Up Photography forum section http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-113-1.html that you may be interested in.

Reply
 
 
Oct 12, 2017 21:41:37   #
NathanG Loc: Atlanta
 
Thanks-very helpful. I have read some of the reviews and all seem to be excellent. Again thanks!

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 21:46:41   #
NathanG Loc: Atlanta
 
Thanks that is helpful and will review it.

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 21:56:06   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
NathanG wrote:
This is my first topic since I joined. I just posted in the new member section introducing myself. My current equipment is a new Nikon D500 with Nikon 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and 55-300 4.5-5.6. I am retired and are spending more time pursuing my hobby of pictures. Mainly been shooting sports (football, baseball, tennis, band and color guard) and family/kids/grand kids pictures but now venturing into landscapes and first time into Micro for flowers and other close-up items . I would like some recommendation on micro lenses as this is a new area for me. I have done some research and talked with a few and one lenses recommended was the Nikon 105 2.8 Micro. Any thoughts on this one or others. Thanks for your help.
This is my first topic since I joined. I just pos... (show quote)


The Nikon 105 2.8 Macro is a good lens. However for about 1/2 the cost the Tokina 100MM 2.8 Macro Pro is just as good. Do a comparison on DXO to confirm this.

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 22:00:39   #
NathanG Loc: Atlanta
 
Thanks for the advice and I will compare and review

Reply
 
 
Oct 12, 2017 22:39:09   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
If you really want t shoot at 1:1, get a macro lens.... extension tubes are fine for close ups.... but you will not get the same IQ using them with zoom lenses. Go to the macro forum and look at the real world of macrophotography. All of those guys use macro lenses. I do feel, however, that the brand makes less difference than it used to. Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron all make competitive lenses.

Nathan specified closeups, and I won’t hijack his thread by getting into 1:1 macro. My tests with primes and zooms show that whatever I.Q. the lens displays at its closest focus, there will be virtually no discernible loss to at least 1:2 with extension tubes or bellows. Anyone who doubts it can test for themselves. Of course, I’m talking about three-dimensional subjects - flat copy is a different animal.

Reply
Oct 12, 2017 23:26:14   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
NathanG wrote:
This is my first topic since I joined. I just posted in the new member section introducing myself. My current equipment is a new Nikon D500 with Nikon 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8 and 55-300 4.5-5.6. I am retired and are spending more time pursuing my hobby of pictures. Mainly been shooting sports (football, baseball, tennis, band and color guard) and family/kids/grand kids pictures but now venturing into landscapes and first time into Micro for flowers and other close-up items . I would like some recommendation on micro lenses as this is a new area for me. I have done some research and talked with a few and one lenses recommended was the Nikon 105 2.8 Micro. Any thoughts on this one or others. Thanks for your help.
This is my first topic since I joined. I just pos... (show quote)


The Image quality of ALL macro lenses are very, very close to each other. What separates them more is their working distances which is affected by their focal lengths. For live creatures, more focal length is better. For stationary subjects shorter is OK. The design of the lens will also affect to a smaller degree the working distance - ie internal focus ( lens does not get longer as you focus closer) vs unit focus ( lens does get longer as you focus closer). Unit focus generally has a smaller working distance. Longer lenses (150mm and up) will have tripod collars - a definite advantage ! Only Canon has a 100mm macro with tripod collar !

Using GOOD short telephoto zoom non-"macro" lenses with extention tubes or 2 element close up lens can give you good results and more options with magnifications in the 1:4 to 1:2 range.

Reply
Oct 13, 2017 00:08:17   #
NathanG Loc: Atlanta
 
I was wondering about the different focal lengths. This helps put that into focus (pun intended). Thanks!

Reply
Oct 13, 2017 01:39:04   #
papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA
 
I too shoot occasional macro with Tamron 70-200 VC and any combination of the three extension tubes with great results f/8 & f/11. I bought them on ebay from China for under $20. They have well machined metal mounts and full AF on my 2.8 glass. If macro was my main field or I just had a wild hair and five C notes; I'd throw Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina in the mix. By the way, I only have four lenses. Tokina 16-28 and three Tammies 24-70, 70-200, 150-600 for my Canon 5D Mark III and 7D.

Reply
Page 1 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.