Macro lens suggestions, please (Page 8): The OP is talking about flowers

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Screamin Scott wrote:

IS helps with your movement, thus it will help if your subject is stationary. What about if your subject is mobile ? When it comes down to it, it all depends on shooting circumstances.

The OP is talking about flowers - which do move unless in the wind ....

roowad_1950 Loc: Arizona

You shouldn't need to buy a new lens if you're wanting to get REALLY close. You can just buy an extension tube. I have a Fuji X-E1 and I use an extension tube with the 18-55 lens. I am able to get right on top of flowers for true macro shooting.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

imagemeister wrote:

The OP is talking about flowers - which do move unless in the wind ....

My experience has been that except on very rare days nothing holds still in nature.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Bobspez wrote:

So what's the point of using a macro lens instead of a non-macro lens?

For high-magnification work in the field a dedicated macro lens is much more convenient and practical. And a flat-field lens is necessary for flat copy. But your comment that I replied to concerned the effect of the lens on a 3-dimensional subject, for which you could put almost any decent non-macro lens on extension tubes or a bellows and achieve the same look as with a macro lens.

Salo Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Just one more possible suggestion that I haven't yet seen mentioned. Get a BR-3 reversing ring for your Nikon F Mount and you can use almost any lens for macro work. The old Nikkors 50mm f/1.8 AIS or the f/2.0 non-AI have exceptional flat fields and produce excellent macro images when reversed. Of course, there's always a little anxiety present when shooting close up with your delicate rear element exposed to the world, but it's the least expensive as well as a most effective way to do excellent macro work on a budget.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Salo wrote:

Just one more possible suggestion that I haven't y... (show quote)

I do reversed with old film lenses, inexpensive and you don't have to worry about damaging an expensive lens, I have found lenses manufactured for Olympus cameras to be the best for that purpose because there is a stop down button on the side of the lens that allows you to focus wide open and then stop the lens down without having to turn the aperture ring for the shot.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Salo wrote:

Just one more possible suggestion that I haven't y... (show quote)

Actually one would need a BR-2A reversing-ring, and use the BR-3 to protect the rear of the reversed lens, as well as to use a hood, filters, &c.

User ID

Bobspez wrote:

Macro lenses tend to make flowers look unreal. A small
bud winds up looking like a giant orchid. Also, the very
shallow depth of field will only capture a portion of the
flower, leaving everything else blurry. Macro lenses are
best suited for objects less than 1/2 inch across and
with a relatively flat focal plane like coins or jewelry or
small insects.

Thaz very true. No one needs a real macro lens for
flowers. Macro lenses, real ones, prioritize flatness
of field and no distortion. Distortion and curvature
of field are not in the least any problem for flowers
or similar subject matter. Don't rule out a VR zoom.
It's far more convenient and practical in actual use.

You did say you are avoiding a tripod.

.

Deanie1113

User ID wrote:

Thaz very true. No one needs a real macro lens for
flowers. Macro lenses, real ones, prioritize flatness
of field and no distortion. Distortion and curvature
of field are not in the least any problem for flowers
or similar subject matter. Don't rule out a VR zoom.
It's far more convenient and practical in actual use.

You did say you are avoiding a tripod.

.

Yes, thank you so much for helping me out. I have used a VR zoom in the past. I am loving all these opinions!!

User ID

`

imagemeister wrote:

If you are serious about IS in macro -
you may want to switch or use as a
second dedicated system .......

Or just hire a photographer ....

But if DIY involved switching away
from Nikon to get IS, Canon is not
really an especially useful choice.

Given that the OP means to stay
with Nikon there are various VR
zooms that focus very close. The
DX body is also a help in framing
small objects without needing to
get to 1:1 or 1:2 to do it.

.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Speaking of VR (or IS, VC, or whatever else it may be called), is it effective with any lens at macro distances? I have an AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85 f/3.5 ED VR, and the manual says VR is best from infinity down to 2.6 meters. I nearly always use a tripod but in my bit of testing handheld, VR drops off rapidly the closer you focus from there ... pretty useless for macro work.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

RWR wrote:

Speaking of VR (or IS, VC, or whatever else it may be called), is it effective with any lens at macro distances? I have an AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85 f/3.5 ED VR, and the manual says VR is best from infinity down to 2.6 meters. I nearly always use a tripod but in my bit of testing handheld, VR drops off rapidly the closer you focus from there ... pretty useless for macro work.

That is why Canon designed a special IS for its 100 L macro and why it is better suited for close work than most others.
.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

imagemeister wrote:

That is why Canon designed a special IS for its 100 L macro and why it is better suited for close work than most others.

I’ll have to check it out - there’s always room for another camera and lens. My tripods are starting to put on weight as they age, and it sure would be nice to leave them in the Jeep while I’m hiking.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

dennis2146 wrote:

You are correct. He was, just sayin, I have a Nikon D5500.

Dennis

I don't have a D5500 but I do have a D500 and D7200.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Bobspez wrote:

Exactly. It's the ability to focus closely that magnifies the image larger than life. For example here's a pic of a cactus flower taken with a 55mm macro lens. The flower is actually 2 to 3 inches in length but gives a whole different view when "blown up".

As I read it, the point is that you can take a good quality non-macro lens with an extension tube, and obtain the same magnification as with a true macro lens. Thus, of course, the subject would look the same. Which rather refutes your statement that "Macro lenses tend to make flowers look unreal."
All this is nothing new, anyone can try it or Google the subject, and see for themselves.