Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Just another example. This spider is maybe 5mm across... I have 8 different MF & AF macro lenses ranging from 55 to 180mm in focal length. The one I goto most is the older MF 105mm. What lens to get is going to be determined by a number of factors

(Download)


(Download)

granbob Loc: SW Wisc; E Iowa; W Illinois

I have great fun with a former top-of-the-line Nikon 200mmf4 MANUAL FOCUS that is no longer available except in the used market, where its frequently priced in the neighborhood of $250. It gives you great working distance on living, moving critters and the money savings can be substantial over newer offerings. I believe it is worth a look.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Nikon makes some excellent micro (macro) lenses. Other manufacturers make good lenses. The Nikon lenses are 40, 60, 85, 105, 200mm all are good. A good place to start would 2x the normal focal length. For DX cameras this would 70mm and 100mm for FX. So the 85mm and 105mm would be good lenses. I have the 85mm.

Changing the focal length affects the working distance. Insect photographers often like the 200mm because of the long working conditions. Some times the shorter focal lengths are useful too. I have a 50mm Sigma Macro lens. It is great for copy work and when I want a less compressed perspective. There is a 15mm macro lens on the market but you subject will almost the glass at 1:1. Very interesting photos can be taken with this lens. Wide angle lenses on short extension tubes can also be used probably about 24mm is as wide as you can go. It would be nice to have some very short auto tubes on the market.

hankswan

For what its worth no one talked about another camera instead of a lens. The Nikon P900 is amazing in both long reach and close up. A couple of things are detractors. No Raw setting (jpeg only). Only built in flash no hot shoe. How many of these lens will take a picture at .5 inch (yes one half of an inch) and then be able to reach out 2000mm (83x)! Can be purchased currently for about $500.00, less than the cost of some of these macro/micro lenses. Image quality is good and can be improved (if needed) in post processing. All other considerations aside it is a fun camera to use. IMO

hankswan

For what its worth no one talked about another camera instead of a lens. The Nikon P900 is amazing in both long reach and close up. A couple of things are detractors. No Raw setting (jpeg only). Only built in flash no hot shoe. How many of these lens will take a picture at .5 inch (yes one half of an inch) and then be able to reach out 2000mm (83x)! Can be purchased currently for about $500.00, less than the cost of some of these macro/micro lenses. Image quality is good and can be improved (if needed) in post processing. All other considerations aside it is a fun camera to use. IMO

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I, for one, would not want to be a half inch from a macro subject. Difficult to light as well as too close for most insects comfort. Nice camera, but not for true life sized macro.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Well, like everything else extension tubes do have their drawbacks, but for the subject of this thread - closeups of stationary objects - they can serve very well in lieu of a dedicated macro lens (close-up lens, actually - very few go beyond 1:1 without an extension tube). For me, a huge benefit of using a zoom lens in the field is that I can set up at the ideal distance for the perspective I want and, by choosing the proper extension tube and focal length, attain the exact magnification ratio I need without changing position. This may not be for everyone, but by working slowly and deliberately, I generally get exactly the shot I want.

Kites

I just finished a photo course with a successful professional photographer. Of course she liked macro lenses, but for the money felt extension tubes did an excellent job.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

It becomes a matter of convenience. The tubes are only as good as the lens they are used with. All macro lenses are "flat field" designs, standard lenses are not. In order to change magnification ratios or composition, tubes need to be added or removed. With a macro lens, all you need to do is turn the focus ring. I have just about every macro tool you can have. Tubes, both manual & AF, bellows, close up lenses (screw on filter types), reversing rings, macro couplers et al and for sheer convenience, the true macro lenses are by far the most convenient. If you are not going to be shooting mobile subjects or life-sized images, then no, you don't need a true macro lens. Also if your macro shooting is limited, then you won't need one, but if you intend to make it one of your preferred niches, a dedicated macro lens is the way to go. Zooms with a "macro" feature are not true macro lenses. There have been a few true macro zooms made but they are all discontinued as far as I know & used copies still command high prices.

mmeador

That is a great lens. Look at the Tokino 100mm macro. I borrowed one from a friend and used it on my D300 and I loved the results. I think there is a comparison test between these two lenses somewhere on one of the forums. Sorry I don't have any more details.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The Nikon 105/2.8D Micro is an exceptional lens, especially if you can find one used in decent shape. Check KEH. Best of luck.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I bought a 60 mm DX Nikkor macro lens and returned it within a few days. Poor build quality. Might have been one bad example, but I wasn't prepared to try it again. If you want a good macro, I'd recommend getting an FX lens even though you have a DX body, albeit a very very good DX body.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

When choosing a macro lens the first thing to consider is the type of subject you plan to shoot. For stationary subjects like flowers [they won't run away], you can get as close as you want, but for critters that will be spooked by getting too close, you want a lens that lets you put a little distance between you and the subject. If you want to be prepared for a variety of subjects, a longer lens is preferred. The Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro is an excellent lens and would be suitable for both types of subjects. If you want a bit more reach, you could go for a 150mm or 200mm lens.

Another thing to consider is the largest available aperture. My preference is for the f/2.8 because [depending on the size of subject] you are not always dealing with a large depth of field and can use a wider aperture than f/4. The reason I mention this is because you also have to consider that you and the lens will cast shadows, and you cannot always position yourself to avoid that. [I have a low-power off-camera flash to help compensate for shadows or even to create shadows - Nikon SB200.]

Larger lenses also tend to have a lens collar so the lens will be mounted on the tripod rather than mounting the camera. This can add to stability.

You can get nice close-up photos using a long lens and standing close to the subject. But a true macro lens will let you get more detail on a small subject. I used a 55-300mm lens for flowers before buying a macro lens [older Sigma 150mm f/2.8 - model without VR]. With the macro lens you will often see things in the photo you never noticed when looking with the naked eye!

Examples: First is a poppy in my garden, a close-up shot ["pseudo-macro"]. Second is a detail of some moss on a rock in my yard [true macro]. I was amazed at the variety in the miniature world in the moss! Many mosses are more homogeneous, but this one was not. Third is a bee on a flower in my garden [true macro]. This is the type, along with butterflies, that you want a longer lens for so you don't scare them away. This bee had its back to me, so its wings and pollen sticking to its legs and hairs can be seen. Even got fine detail of its hairs!

Poppy - "pseudo macro" with great bokeh


Moss detail - true macro


Bee on flower - true macro

NathanG Loc: Atlanta

Thank you for taking the time and sharing your pictures. The picture of the bee is just outstanding. Was this taken with your Sigma 150 f2.8 Macro. How close did you get before the shot.