Nikon 105 Macro D810 Body.
Midnight night blooming cactus. hand held.
Bee sticking tongue out at non Nikon users. :)
Nikon 105 macro hand held.
I hope you guys have a sense of humor.
kcj wrote:
Has any one used the Tamron 90 mm macro or the Tokina 100 macro ? What is your opinion on these lenses Using on a Nikon 610
I have the Tamron 90 SP - works great for macro or portraiture on my D7200, but on FF D610 it will yield excellent results too at 1:1. Excellent resolution and sharpness.
I don't have the Tokina 100 but from what I hear it is a great lens too for a couple hundred less (but no VR/VC). I was going to pick one up to try it but do not have spare GAS money at the moment.
johnhjacobs wrote:
.........
Sensor size is another consideration. On an APS-C
a 90mm or 100mn might be a bit too much reach;
a 60mm might be a better choice.
Once you open that can of worms, you then ought
to consider than an
internal focus 90 would be only
around 50 to 60mm Effective FL in macro use. We
got pretty much this whole UHH community always
bleating that a 50 or 55 macro is "too short", but
an OLD [non-IF] 50 or 55 will have an Effective FL
of about 85 to 110mm in macro use.
IOW the "experts" who "upgraded" from their "old
obsolete" 55mm Micro Nikkors, and sing the praise
of their 90 or 100mm internal focus macros, have
really just swallowed waaay too much of the photo
industry's purple Kool-Aid.
So, especially if you mainly use MF for macro, keep
you old unit focusing macro, or go get you one. My
old 105 Micro Nikkor has an Effective FL of 210mm
at 1:1. At 1/2 life size, EFL about 150mm.
Nikon 105 macro.
Besides the fact it’s a great 105mm Macro.
I like the 2.8 it lets me shoot at F36 so I get a better depth of field.
It’s a great all around lens!
I got mine used and if something happened to it
I would buy another one.
I also have a Nikon 200mm macro that is also great.
I got it in hopes of better depth of field at a greater distance from the subject.
rtdm60 wrote:
..........
I also have a Nikon 200mm macro that
is also great. I got it in hopes of better
depth of field at a greater distance from
the subject.
But, thaz not how DoF works.
Increased the subject distance increases
DoF, thaz true, but increased focal length
decreases DoF. IOW, there's still no such
thing as a free lunch :-(
That's true.
With 200mm that helps a little but not as munch as I was hoping for.
No free lunch.
200mm Nikon lens.
I print 20 X30 inch prints.
So I wanted a good close up of flowers so I could get a good print.
The 200mm is great for that. I can get farther away and get OK DOF
and still have a big print.
That my story and I'm sticking to it.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.