Looking for advice, opinions and ideas (Page 2): Focus stacking at a small aperture (eg f/2.8 to f/4) will do exactly what you are looking for.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

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

Focus stacking at a small aperture (eg f/2.8 to f/4) will do exactly what you are looking for.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

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

Very interesting scenario. Our opinion is you were successful in your quest. The near bloom is in focus and the others are not. This is caused by depth of field as set by your aperture. f/5.6 is fairly long for this type shot but it was your choice and you have the results. We need to hear from you as to your degree of satisfaction. Is this what you wanted? If you had wanted less focus on the rear blooms you should have opened up your lens further. You have made a pleasant photograph but your statements indicate you may have wanted more of your chosen effect. Well done for presenting and asking, helps to "get to the next level." Your interest in this opens up wonderful worlds of options in shooting. Keep up the good work.

pesfls Loc: Oregon, USA

Leitz wrote:

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

I understand that. Distance to subject and f stop do both interact. The comment was simply meant the to help the poster understand the need to learn that going from 60mm to 90 or 105 will have an impact, as a practical matter. Yes one can achieve the same dof at different focal lengths. For me, over the years the longer macro/micro lenses greatest benefit is working distance. I used the Nikon 55mm micro for years before they came out with the 105 f4. What a game changer that was.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Linda From Maine wrote:

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

Doesn't have to be macro only. Say your scene is 100' wide. You can move in closer with a wide-angle lens, or farther back with a long lens, as long as you're covering that 100' wide scene, your depth of field at any given aperture will be the same. I hope that clears it up!

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

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. 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

That is a little misleading. We have to know whether you're changing focal length alone, or whether you are also changing the subject to camera distance to compensate for the different angle of view, therefore keeping the subject approximately the same size in the final image with each focal length.

If the subject size and the f-stop are the same, then the depth of field will be pretty much the same between two different focal lengths. At 10 feet a 100mm lens at f/2.8 gives you a depth of field of 0.33 feet, while at 5 feet with a 50mm at f/2.8 you will also get 0.33 feet. (The subject will be the same size in the frame at 5 feet with a 50mm lens, as it will be at 10 feet with a 100mm lens.)

In the real world in actual practice we do not usually stand in the same place to photograph the same or similar subjects with two different focal lengths. With a shorter focal length lens we move closer in order to frame the subject in the viewfinder. With a shorter focal length, we move in closer and at the same aperture the depth of field will then be the same regardless of focal length.

Yes, a 35mm lens will give you greater apparent depth of field than a 400mm lens when taking a photograph of a person, providing that both photos are taken at the same distance from the subject. If we are photographing a flower, however, we fill the frame with the subject(s). That negates any depth if field advantage to a shorter focal length.

Therefore, for close up and macro photography, longer lenses have two advantages. First, you have greater working distance with a longer lens, and secondly you have a narrower and more realistic looking field of view, which means less distortion of the subject. Fill the frame with someone's face using a wide angle lens and that distortion becomes obvious.

Mike

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Blenheim Orange wrote:

That is a little misleading. We have to know wheth... (show quote)

Thank you Mike!

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

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

Dodie, I like your Johnny Jump ups very much.

That lens is nice, no problem. However, the effect you are after will be much easier with a longer lens. The depth of field will appear to be shallower with a longer lens (for the same framing of the subject.)

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

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

A longer lens also has the advantage of less distortion, and shallower apparent depth of field (for the same framing of a subject.) Those are important considerations for close-up and macro photography.

Mike