Looking for advice, opinions and ideas: This photo was taken with a Nikon 60mm macro lens. ISO 1000, 1/40th, f5.6. My intent was to have the nearer flower in focus with the others...

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

This photo was taken with a Nikon 60mm macro lens. ISO 1000, 1/40th, f5.6. My intent was to have the nearer flower in focus with the others falling just out of focus. In Lightroom I cropped a little off the bottom and did a slight tweaking.

Please tell me what you think of the performance of this lens. I am seriously considering the Tamron 90mm macro. Would you think there is a use for both?

All opinions, ideas, critiques and advice is welcome.

Thank you!!

Dodie

(Download)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

luvmypets wrote:

This photo was taken with a Nikon 60mm macro lens. ISO 1000, 1/40th, f5.6. My intent was to have the nearer flower in focus with the others falling just out of focus. In Lightroom I cropped a little off the bottom and did a slight tweaking.

Please tell me what you think of the performance of this lens. I am seriously considering the Tamron 90mm macro. Would you think there is a use for both?

All opinions, ideas, critiques and advice is welcome.

Thank you!!

Dodie

You net the goal with the 60 mm Nikon Micro Nikkor. It is a great lens. You met the goal and no need in my opinion for te 90MM Tamron. If you photograph bugs and want some distance from the subject, consider the Nikon Micro Nikkor F4 105mm

ReFlections Loc: From LA to AL

PixelStan77 wrote:

You net the goal with the 60 mm Nikon Micro Nikkor. It is a great lens. You met the goal and no need in my opinion for te 90MM Tamron. If you photograph bugs and want some distance from the subject, consider the Nikon Micro Nikkor F4 105mm

👍

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

You met your goal on focus. But understand you will loose significant dof if you go to the longer lens. That may be good for some shots depending on what you want. Working distance will increase considerably which can be a big bonus. Keep experimenting.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

PixelStan77 wrote:

You net the goal with the 60 mm Nikon Micro Nikkor. It is a great lens. You met the goal and no need in my opinion for te 90MM Tamron. If you photograph bugs and want some distance from the subject, consider the Nikon Micro Nikkor F4 105mm

Thank you, PixelStan77!!! I don't photography bugs.....I've just started photographing flowers with the idea of improving past a snapshot and want a really good lens . As Pesfls points out I will lose DOF with the longer lens. This is something to consider even with the 105. According to DXO the 90mm Tamron performs a little better than the Nikon which is one reason I was opting that direction. I will do more research before I decide on a longer lens and will keep practicing with this one. Thank you for your input.

Please take care during these crazy times!!!

Dodie

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

ReFlections wrote:

👍

Thank you ReFlections!! Your thumbs up backs PixelStan77's comments so I will consider that a second vote.

Take care!!

Dodie

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

pesfls wrote:

You met your goal on focus. But understand you will loose significant dof if you go to the longer lens. That may be good for some shots depending on what you want. Working distance will increase considerably which can be a big bonus. Keep experimenting.

Thank you Pesfls!! That's a point I hadn't given much thought to the DOF but will strongly consider if that will be and advantage or disadvantage. There is a bush in my neighbor's yard with a beautiful double flower that I can't get to because of other bushes surrounding it. I have thought to take my Tamron 150-600 to see if I can get a photo of one of the blooms but the DOF may not work for it. Worth seeing what it will do now that you have pointed this out.

Please take care during these trying times!!

Dodie

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Beautiful photo! I have the 60mm too and the 105mm(which gives more working distance but a shallower DOF).

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Looks great, Dodie. My personal preference is to not have a teensy bit of flower edge cut off because then, to my eye, it appears to be a mistake. So on both the left and right of this composition I'd like to see more space, just enough so the blossoms aren't touching the edge. This is not a huge matter, but as you know from your FYC topic and in general, I'm sure, we all have our little "things"

Congrats on a beautiful result!

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

I find the pink/blue a little distracting. Burning it down a bit, IMHO, wouldn't pull my attention away from your subject(s)...........one can never have enough lenses

HOT Texas Loc: From the Heart of Texas

luvmypets wrote:

This photo was taken with a Nikon 60mm macro lens. ISO 1000, 1/40th, f5.6. My intent was to have the nearer flower in focus with the others falling just out of focus. In Lightroom I cropped a little off the bottom and did a slight tweaking.

Please tell me what you think of the performance of this lens. I am seriously considering the Tamron 90mm macro. Would you think there is a use for both?

All opinions, ideas, critiques and advice is welcome.

Thank you!!

Dodie

There nothing wrong with that shot and I really like it, it's beautiful

I think you did very well what you intended to do, I most likely would have shot it at f/3.2 or 3.5
a longer lens would have blurred the background even more.

I don't see anything wrong with that lens, looks like it's working very well for you.

The advantage of a longer lens is you don't have to get so close to your subject and sometimes cast a shadow
over what your trying to shoot and if you like shooting bugs it helps to not scare the bug away.

I think you did a fine job!!!

Leitz Loc: Solms

pesfls wrote:

But understand you will loose significant dof if you go to the longer lens.

You do not lose depth of field by going to a longer lens.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Leitz wrote:

You do not lose depth of field by going to a longer lens.

When comparing, if you do not change aperture or distance to subject, the focal length does significantly affect depth of field. Here is one handy calculator: https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

Controlled tests of one's own equipment or advice from others who own a specific lens is always a good idea

Leitz Loc: Solms

Linda From Maine wrote:

When comparing, if you do not change aperture or distance to subject, the focal length does significantly affect depth of field.

Aah, but by going to a different focal length and not changing the distance, you're changing the magnification ratio which, along with the aperture, is what determines depth of field.

http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-macro

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Leitz wrote:

Aah, but by going to a different focal length and not changing the distance, you're changing the magnification ratio which, along with the aperture, is what determines depth of field.

http://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof-macro

Thanks for the clarification about macro. That is a foreign country to me!