Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Macro Lenses - 30mm, 60mm, 90mm, 180mm - which is best? what has been your experience?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
Apr 14, 2019 13:28:14   #
Annie Loyd
 
Cool and thanks for the explanation. I wanted a 60...looks like I already have it..!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 13:30:06   #
Annie Loyd
 
Thanks...I have the 40...looks like I will be shopping a used 100.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 13:57:47   #
Chris T
 
Annie Loyd wrote:
So my 40mm Macro is really a 100mm with my crop sensor D7500 Nikon? Right?


No, not actually, Annie … a 40mm DX Macro Lens works out to be 60mm on an FX camera …

That lens will only be a 40mm Macro on the D7500 … but, if you used it on an FX camera - you wouldn't actually have a 60mm Macro … in fact, even 60mm Macros are DX lenses … if you buy a 100 or 105mm Macro - now - you've bought a lens designed for an FX (FF) camera, but, it's the length assigned to it on an any FX (or FF) DSLR … however, on a crop-sensor camera, it would seem like a 150 or 157 (105) mm lens.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:08:38   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Is it really necessary for us to buy one in each range? Or, are just one or two suitable for most things? If you use them - please advise as to which length is better suited for YOUR purposes, and why you chose it.


I looked at the lengths available and having used a very old 100mm and an old 50mm I find both useful.
I prefer the 100mm, I acquired a new AF one with IS. It makes a great macro and a good general purpose lens. Larger than f2.8 is generally preferred for portraits.
The 50mm is the go to lens for flat copy work.
If I had to get 1 I would go with the 100mm.
For me 180mm is excessive as my 100-400mm L easily covers very close focus for small creatures and any greater magnification the FLM 100mm f4 covers any possible gap. The 100-400mm really is near macro at 3' at 400mm. Most excellent and nothing else like it.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:11:09   #
Chris T
 
Annie Loyd wrote:
Cool and thanks for the explanation. I wanted a 60...looks like I already have it..!


Yes, but the 40mm Macro is only a 60mm relevant to an FX camera, which the D7500 is not (it's a DX) …

The Nikon Macros are as follows, Annie … 40mm, 60mm, 85mm, 105mm, 200mm …

The Sigma Macros include the 70mm, the 105mm, the 150mm and the 180mm ...

Tamron just has the 90mm ones, and the 180mm ...

Tokina, now - just offers the 100 Macro …

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:18:31   #
Bertk
 
Thanks Chris for the topic you chose, I learned a lot and still confused.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:19:02   #
Bill_de (a regular here)
 
Annie Loyd wrote:
Cool and thanks for the explanation. I wanted a 60...looks like I already have it..!


You have a 40mm lens which on your D7500 gives the same field of view as a 60mm lens would give you on a full frame camera.

So, YES, you have exactly what you want.

I have the Nikkor 40mm DX. It's sharp, has nice contrast, and is small enough to keep in a pocket when you happen upon a macro situation while out and about shooting.

--

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:19:45   #
Chris T
 
Architect1776 wrote:
I looked at the lengths available and having used a very old 100mm and an old 50mm I find both useful.
I prefer the 100mm, I acquired a new AF one with IS. It makes a great macro and a good general purpose lens. Larger than f2.8 is generally preferred for portraits.
The 50mm is the go to lens for flat copy work.
If I had to get 1 I would go with the 100mm.
For me 180mm is excessive as my 100-400mm L easily covers very close focus for small creatures and any greater magnification the FLM 100mm f4 covers any possible gap. The 100-400mm really is near macro at 3' at 400mm. Most excellent and nothing else like it.
I looked at the lengths available and having used ... (show quote)


First time I've ever heard THAT, Arch … a 100-400 - used as a Macro!!!! … as close as THREE FEET, huh?

That's about what you'd be with a 180 or 200, I'll bet!!!! … 105 Macros are good to about 1.2 feet (14")

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:24:25   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:

Wow, Gene … a company exclusively devoted
to making better macro lenses. What a GodSend!
Thanks!!!


Godsend ?

Did you read the specs ?

All those optics are for intruemntation
and measurement applications using
verrrry small sensors. They are clearly
industrial use, not for photography.

.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:28:02   #
Chris T
 
User ID wrote:
Godsend ?

Did you read the specs ?

All those optics are for intruemntation
and measurement applications using
verrrry small sensors. They are clearly
industrial use, not for photography.

.


Yes, User … I did … AFTER making that comment … clearly - First Vision Macro Lenses are intended for Optical Machinery - rather than DSLRs … which have sensors of UP TO 1" and out to 120MM Max.

Thought I'd better give it a read-through before asking Gene where he'd seen 135mm Macros ….

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:36:57   #
Chris T
 
Annie Loyd wrote:
Thanks...I have the 40...looks like I will be shopping a used 100.


Annie … the Tokina 100 Macro - sells, brand new - for just under $400 …

It was designed by the folks who made Tokina, after leaving Nikon - so, they look very similar …

Only thing is - they use the Push-Pull mechanism for focusing, which can be a little off-putting …

But, it's a fine lens, and most folks who use Nikons - are quite happy with it …

The Sigma EX 105 OS HSM Macro, btw … sells for just $565 nowadays … a helluva Macro lens!!!!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:38:15   #
speters (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Is it really necessary for us to buy one in each range? Or, are just one or two suitable for most things? If you use them - please advise as to which length is better suited for YOUR purposes, and why you chose it.


No, and why even ask? Its the same as any other photographic niche, you do not need to buy any available lens for that either, you pick based on your needs and "style". They are all good lenses, but each reaquires different approaches and you take it from that. Pick one and be done (maybe at a later point in time you get another one for whatever reason)!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:41:59   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
First time I've ever heard THAT, Arch …
a 100-400 - used as a Macro!!!! … as close as THREE FEET, huh?

That's about what you'd be with a 180 or 200, I'll bet!!!! … 105
Macros are good to about 1.2 feet (14")


Life with modern zooms includes internal focusing,
which shortens the FL as you focus closer ... same
as what happens with many modern macro lenses.

My Nikon zoom at 300mm marked FL "shrinks" to
about 135mm actual FL at the near focus. IOW, it
does what users of 135mm macros only wish their
lenses would do: It shoots closeups at an actual
135mm working FL.

Near limit is 9" from the front element and field of
view is 3x5". IOW, "close-up" but no "macro" head
shots of bumble bees.

Here's a non-bumble-bee head shot at a marked
300mm, about 5' away, so actual FL is about 150.

Notice the terrific corner performance, rivaling any
of the most esteemed "True Macro" lenses !


(Download)

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:45:43   #
Chris T
 
Bertk wrote:
Thanks Chris for the topic you chose, I learned a lot and still confused.


Thanks, Bert … this wasn't really posed as a Macro primer, for those uninitiated, but rather as a discussion on which of the Basic Four Macro Lens Groups (30-40, 50-70, 90-105, 180-200) - was better suited for ALL purposes - which implies you already have at least one or two of them, and have decided those TWO are working out for you - in contrast to those who have at least ONE in each of the FOUR groups, and thus - can take their pick, at their leisure - which, of course - is the ideal solution …. But, this post - was intended to recognize we aren't ALL - lucky enough to be in such a position, so - if only TWO were in the budget - which TWO would YOU (the reader, and Macro user) - be likely to choose. I hope that explains further, the intent.

As to the state of your confusion - perhaps, if you'd elaborate on that - someone here could help further.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:46:50   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Is it really necessary for us to buy one in each range? Or, are just one or two suitable for most things? If you use them - please advise as to which length is better suited for YOUR purposes, and why you chose it.


When I had the Canon 70-200 f4 I really liked it for close up work - either with a tube , a 500D, a 1.4X or a combination of two of these.

On Sony, I have also used the Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5 with a 12mm tube with great success and Clear Image Zoom if need be.

Now, with the A99, I will be using a 100mm Tokina and CIZ along with the 70-210/tube and CIZ.

..

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.