Macro lense (Page 4): :sm02:...

no nameJoe

3dees wrote:

if you shoot insects, may I suggest the Sigma 150mm Macro. a little big and a little heavy, but a superb lens.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

For macro you will probably find that AF and VR are of not much value. The depth of field and focus range are very sensitive and you will need to use a tripod and you might find that a macro rail will help as well. Also, a good remote for the D7200. I use a Pixel and have been very happy with that. I have a D7200 as well, and I came from the film world. My Nikkor 50mm and my Tokina 70-210mm zoom and macro that I used on my Nikon film body work great on it. With that in mind you might want to see what you might find in the way of used film lenses as well. Might find a really good piece of glass at a real bargain.

deer2ker Loc: Nashville, TN

LOL!!! That is her spots - therefore her name.....Dottie Appreciate it though :D

Leon S wrote:

Take this as a helpful suggestion please. You really need to have your sensor cleaned. The spots on your dogs body really distract from the picture.

Bob Boner

Bob Boner wrote:
"If you plan to photograph insects, I recommend a longer focal length (Sigma 150 is one of the best I have owned, and I have owned Nikon and Canon (200mm and 180mm respectively). With a short focal length, I found that I frequently scared the insect into flying before I was able to get close enough to it to get a decent sized image.

Getting close enough is all a matter of technique and knowing your subject"

That is also true with a longer lens. But my experience is that a longer lens helps. I do a lot of macro work, and have been for 50 years, and when I increased the length of my lens (with the Nikkor 200mm macro), I increased number of decent sized images I get.

cmcaroffino Loc: Sebring, FL

I have the Tokina 100mm macro and use it both on a D7200 and a D750. A solid well built lens, sharp, and the best value in macro lens there is. Of course the Nikon is a great lens too but much more expensive.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

That's what make pets so enduring and lovable. Leon

ChristianHJensen

The Tokina is an excellent lens - sort of a jewel from that brand where most of their lenses are so-so. For the price of this lens it is the bomb. You won't find anything better unless you are up for shelling out 3-4 times as much mulah - and the difference will be minimal.

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

ChristianHJensen wrote:

The Tokina is an excellent lens - sort of a jewel from that brand where most of their lenses are so-so. For the price of this lens it is the bomb. You won't find anything better unless you are up for shelling out 3-4 times as much mulah - and the difference will be minimal.

I use a number of older manual focus lenses from film days. Cost is even less and they take great images. I have other lenses for portraiture and really don't need my macro lenses for anything other than macro. The cameras I have all meter with the older lenses but I still shoot entirely in manual & handheld as well. As I said before, my go to lens is an older manual focus 105mm F2.8 (Lester Dine)

(Download)

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Here are examples of a #4 close up filter on a Minolta 70-210mm lens at Aprox. 90mm, and a Tamron SP 90mm Macro lens. Both shot on a Minolta 5D just a few seconds apart.

#4 close up filter on Minolta 70-210 at 90mm

Tamron SP 90mm Macro
Tamron SP 90mm Macro...

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

You need to resend the images with the files saved so that we can enlarge the image for inspection as I did in my last post. As posted here, the differences can't be discerned. EDIT: with the image size of 600 x 399, it's likely they couldn't be enlarged enough to discern differences.

ORpilot wrote:

Here are examples of a #4 close up filter on a Minolta 70-210mm lens at Aprox. 90mm, and a Tamron SP 90mm Macro lens. Both shot on a Minolta 5D just a few seconds apart.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Screamin Scott wrote:

Getting close enough is all a matter of technique and knowing your subject

I agree - 90-105mm should be enough for a DX camera... I find that most insects are not aware of a big lens next to them as long as movement is minimal (no quick movements). What is a challenge with insects is that many flutter around and don't stay in one spot too long - bees are one example of this. So you have to be ready - prefocus if possible, use Ch or Cl mode - the mirror/shutter noise doesn't seem to bother them either. A longer lens will provide shallower DOF which is already shallow at macro distances, so you will be shooting at f16 or higher. It's all a balancing act with macro shooting. A flash setup will help but it's extra bulk to carry around.

I was shooting this flower closer when he landed a few seconds later. This busy bee was camera shy - he was facing me then turned around doing his thing then flew off 3 seconds later - patience!

Mikevet

Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Hands down. If you want more magnification you can use a revesing ring with a 50mm lens in front of the 105. Works great!

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

vista wrote:

I currently use a Nikon D7200 and am looking for a macro lense recommendation. Does anyone have opinions on the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X AF pro D Macro? Appreciate any input. Thank you

That is a fantastic lens! I bought one directly from Tokina. It is great as a MACRO, and can be used for portraits, also. Sharp as a tack, too.

gwilliams6

That Tokina looks super. Just today I got a new Sigma Art 70mm f2.8 macro in native E-Mount for my Sony cameras. I will test it out for the next week, and if this thread is still going,I will post some shots. Cheers

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

Screamin Scott wrote:

You need to resend the images with the files saved so that we can enlarge the image for inspection as I did in my last post. As posted here, the differences can't be discerned. EDIT: with the image size of 600 x 399, it's likely they couldn't be enlarged enough to discern differences.

Sorry, that is the max resolution. I deliberately shot those images at the lowest resolution on my 13 yr old 5mp Minolta 5D so they would load without problems. If I wanted the images to be dissected by the pixel peepers then I would have used a tripod, and my 42mp camera. I wanted to demonstrate to the new comer to macro photography that you don't need to spend Big bucks to get reasonable results. Yes ,the Tamron Macro at over $200 used, is better. But if you have a limited budget , is it 100 times better than the cost of the close up lens filter? If you don't blow images up 200% and only stick them on your computer or print them to 8x10, use you money on other things. Most images never make it any farther than viewing on a cel phone or being e-mailed. So there is no need for the "best" if you don't utilize those capabilities.