frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Truly enjoy the UHH Macro shots of flowers, bugs, etc. Am a learning amateur.

Shoot Nikon D7200 and have the following in my lens kit: Sigma 17-70mm, Nikkor 70-300mm, 50mm prime and original kit 18-55mm. I have been relatively pleased with the look of my 300mm lens close ups of flowers, etc. Some of these I have had to crop. Have not yet tried bugs and other frisky insects.

Have narrowed the Macro lens choices down to the Nikon 105mm, f/2.8 or the Tamron 90mm, f/2.8.

So, what does the macro lens give me that I can’t get with my current kit? Obviously, better focus distance and speed, but will I get sharper images with the 1:1 real deal?

Just trying to justify the $$$ outlay.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Try extension tubes first. Much less pensive and very versatile.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Forget my question folks; I found the Macro sub-forum!

Deanie1113

I have the same question...where's the macro subforum?

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Search: “True Macro-Photography Forum”

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Go up to the top and click on "Home" then scroll down to "All Sections" then scroll through the list of all the sub-forums and at each you can click on "subscribe" to add it to your own list. There is a "True Macro..." section and a "Close up" section.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Spend $33 for a simple set of extension tubes. You adjust focus and exposure manually, but you can get good results. When I got mine, they were $10.

https://smile.amazon.com/Neewer-Focus-Extension-Cameras-NW-N-AF1-BL/dp/B015XQH6AM/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1538742738&sr=1-4&keywords=camera+extension+tubes&dpID=51Jrn-J1NjL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

As for sharpness, a true macro len is sharp edge to edge when the subject is flat and parallel to the sensor. This condition exists mostly in a controlled setting. Also, a true macro will reproduce at 1:1, which means that a 1" subject will reproduce at 1" on the sensor. If you don't need these two features, you likely don't need a true macro lens.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I just bought a MINT in the box Nikon 105 2.8 macro for $500.00 and I could not be happier. As to brand, COME ON MAN, nothing, I mean, nothing compares to the Nikon 105. Read the reviews on this lens, I mean they are true testimonials to the quality of the images you get from this lens. And really, $500.00, you just can't beat it. Got it on Ebay after watching for 2 weeks I snatched this deal.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

As noted, UHH has a "True Macro" section which may interest you. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-22447-1.html

Note that "Macro" has a specific meaning. A lot of people use it to describe "close-ups" (another nebulous term). The "True Macro" section states:

"For the purposes of this forum (and the vast majority of the technical photography world), Macro-Photography is defined as 1:1 magnification (life-size), up to 10:1 magnification (10x life-size), usually captured with a true macro lens. 1:1 magnification means that the captured image on a CMOS sensor (or film) is exact same size as original subject. Macro dimensions can also be achieved by cropping a near-macro image."

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Many true macro lenses (like the Nikkor 105 and Tamron 90mm) are "flat field" designs. Their optics are specifically tuned for close focus, to render sharpness from corner to corner. The majority today (including those two) also give at least 1:1 magnification. It can be made to render even higher magnification by adding extension tubes to a macro lens.

Most macro lenses also have "long throw" focus (both AF and MF)... this is intentionally slower, emphasizing precision over speed because depth of field can be very shallow at high magnifications.

It also is common for macro lenses to have smaller apertures available, than are typically found on non-macro lenses of the same focal length. For example, the Micro Nikkor 105mm offers as small as f/32... while the non-macro (more portrait oriented) Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 and Nikkor 105mm f/2D both have f/16 as their smallest aperture. I would wager the two non-macro 105s are also not flat field designs.... are probably optimized for focus at around 12 feet (rather than 12 inches!)

So, yes, there are some differences between "true" macro lenses and non-macro. But sometimes it's more interesting to "color outside the lines"... rather than buy another piece of gear, adapt something you have for other than it's intended use and see what you can accomplish with it.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

There are three ways to accomplish the same end product. A macro lens is one way. There are also lens tubes for a low cost solution, but the best is a bellows. Unlike lens tubes that are in fixed lengths, a bellows allows substantially more versatility compared to macro lenses and tubes. Although bellows attachments that your camera to use its automatic features are quite expensive, bellows attachments that require you to manually set your camera are very affordable. Here is a link:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=camera+bellows&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=camera+bellows+for+dslr&_sacat=0

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Yes, but Auto focus and aperture control are not retained when the bellows are in use.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

If you are doing close-up photography, you will want to manually focus your camera even if autofocus is available because manual focusing combined with zooming in on your LCD will give you the sharpest focus possible. As far as aperture control, I would buy a used manual prime lens; 50mm is fine. You can do this for much less money than a new macro lens and have much more versatility.

jcboy3

You don’t need a macro lens, especially one that does true (1:1) macro, if you hust want pictures of flowers. There are a lot of good close focusing lenses that will work just fine.

Using a 300mm lens, on the other hand, is very limited in both close focus distance and DOF.