Sir Motley

I am fairly new to digital photography and have absolutely no experience with micro photography but I am intrigued by the images that have been taken with a micro lens. I am looking at two different focal lengths in a micro lens (105 mm versus 40 mm). There is a significant difference in price of the two that I am looking at with the 40 mm lens being much cheaper. Besides the obvious, how does the focal length influence the image that I will be taking? Is there one length that is clearly superior to other lengths?

cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Are you referring to "Macro lenses"? I'll let those who have used both respond but I have a 100mm macro and use it a lot. One advantage over the short ones I see others using is you get to work further from the subject so the camera is less likely to become a shadow maker and less intrusive when shooting a live subject.

GPappy Loc: Finally decided to plop down, Clover, S.C.

Longer focal length will render more working distance between the lens and the subject. I believe you mean "macro" photography.

mp97070 Loc: Central Oregon

Nikon lenses are called micro. I have a 105mm micro and love it. It hasn’t presented any problems from focal length and I am very happy I chose it, even though it was a bit speedy! If I had a ton of money, I would get something around 40mm, but I am not sure how useful it would be. In the film days I used a 50mm lens on macro tubes, I like the 105 way more!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

GPappy Loc: Finally decided to plop down, Clover, S.C.

You didn't indicate any specific brand or model so....I actually like my "Lester Dine" 105mm. This was originally designed to be a lens for dental photography back in the film days. They were made in several camera mounts and are still available on eBay sometimes. I also use a 90mm Sigma lens for macro. I won't go into all the tubes, bellows, flash attachments and other accouterments I've acquired.

Sir Motley

Thanks for all the info. I now know the difference between various focal lengths for Nikkor "micro" lenses.

Another question: With respect to Nikkor lenses, is there a difference between "micro lenses" and "close-up lenses"?

Many thanks again for all the previous responses.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"Micro" is Nikon. "Macro" is the rest of the world.

https://photophique.com/best-nikon-macro-lenses/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/best-macro-lenses.htm
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-macro-lens-1310544/2
https://photophique.com/best-nikon-macro-lenses/

rdubreuil Loc: Dummer, NH USA

You don't indicate what type of subject matter you're looking to capture, so bare that in mind when you make your choice. Static subjects (flowers and the like) vs. subjects that move (insects/small animals) will determine which lens you will make the most use of. The longer the focal length the further you can stay away from your subject and thus not scare it away. The 40 will allow you to get much closer, but then again macro 1:1 is 1:1. In other words any "macro/micro" (and no, lenses with "macro modes" are not true macro lenses unless they can achieve 1:1, which most don't if any) lens will produce 1:1 images, it's just how close to you have to be to achieve 1:1 with that lens. Also bare in mind the closer to your subject you get the tinier your depth of field becomes, hence the challenges of macro photography, then again there's always focus stacking to over come that.

A 40mm is good as it can double as a street lens, a 60mm can double as a standard lens on FX and decent portrait lens on DX, 90 on up you'll get comfortable distances for live subjects. The beauty of macro/micro lenses they are so versatile. Mostly it depends on your budget and what you'll do the most of shooting wise. Personally I'm always on the look out for a good deal on a macro/micro lens. I currently have 3 a 60mm, a 105mm and a 200mm. Which ever you decide to get good luck and happy shooting.

olsonsview

Curious how Nikon always labelled their Macro lenses "micro". I have several (4) Nikkor "micro" lenses and love them. But in order to do true "Micro Photography" we enter the world beyond 1:1 reproduction that the above mentioned lenses stop at. And Nikon did make true Micro lenses but they are rare and pricey, and require a bellows or other equipment to function as intended. To go beyond 1:1 is a challenge and requires more than just a handheld macro lens. The only exception is the Canon Mde lens, which does not convert readily to use on a Nikon. And the Canon specialty lens really begs for a focusing rail and a tripod.
Back to the authors subject, if you truly want to do close to 1:1 work then get at least the 105 lens. An older manual focus micro nikkor works great on most dig nikon bodies, Quite cheap to purchase a nice one used, and any real macro work is best done using manual focus, and VR is not of much use beyond 1:3?
If you need the macro lens for stamp collecting, coin photos, or other non mobile subjects then save the money and get the 40 or 60 mm lens. It is great for copy work. But if the subject is alive and shy, then you need the 105 to stay away from the subject, or the 200mm or longer if the subject is dangerous to the photographer. That said the 105 or 200 works fine on the coins, stamps too!
As mentioned: you can save a bundle if you purchase a Nikon Ai, or Ais manual focus lens, and macro work is rarely spontaneous, it is planned and careful. And the older lenses are still tack sharp.

Sir Motley

Thanks again, everyone. Based upon your responses, as well as the reviews provided by Jerry (a special thanks to you, Jerry, your links are always helpful), I have decided to go with the Nikon 40mm f2.8 micro. It’s fairly reasonable in price and will be a good entre into the macro world.

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

Macro is my niche. I have eight different true macro lenses from 55 to 180 mm in focal length. Some are AF, others are MF. I have yet to find a true macro lens that didn’t deliver. The fact that so many different brands are suggested is testament to that. The MF ones I own will still meter with my camera bodies I use. If shooting insects, longer is better for several reasons. One, it’s easier to light your subject as you don’t have to get as close to fill the frame & the added distance helps ensure that the insects don’t flee so easily. That said, the longer the focal length, the bulkier, heavier & more expensive they become. My go to macro is an older MF 105 from the mid 1980’s and I have lots of insects that I have captured with it. Technique trumps gear used when shooting macro. I shoot entirely in manual and use additional lighting as it allows me to stop the lens down for more DOF plus the short duration of the flash stops motion, be it my subject or my own.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Nikon uses "micro" and everybody else uses "macro" for the same thing. I prefer macro. A true macro (micro) lens focuses to a 1:1 image size on the sensor. A "closeup" lens doesn't but can get down to around 1:4 or 1:2, depending on how technical you want to get. Short macros like 40mm are primarily for photographing coins and small objects in a studio type setting. Longer ones, at least 100mm to 200m, are better for outdoor work where you might need more camera-to-subject distance. And I'm sure others out there will disagree with me.

Sir Motley

I’m glad I didn’t order the 40mm right away. The last two responses (which I just read) were the most enlightening. Right now I don’t know exactly what I will be using a macro lens for, mobile subjects or non-mobile, but I don’t think coins and/or stamps will be very frequent. So I will save my money until I can justify a 105mm or 200mm macro purchase.