Quite interesting. And novel?
Why not purchase a used manual focus macro lens to fit your camera? Macro shooters, working up to 1:1 never use auto focus or VR capabilities.
Manual focus, especially with a focus rail you asked about, on a tripod, is the cheapest, quality way to go. You may even find a used autofocus macro lens, without VR for a low price. Then you can use auto exposure. The only cheap macro method that works well is reversing a good lens. The closeup filters are usually less than good, and extension tubes work OK, but work way better with a macro lens on the end of them. Good Luck!
Many lenses utilize internal focusing where the internal lens rotates some. The less expensive camera lenses rotate the front element when zooming or focusing. The little weight savings of cutting a lens rectangular would be destroyed by the increased costs to manufacture the lens. Can you imagine the damage done to lenses that need to be cut, after grinding, a lot of wasted lens elements would result. A lens is best ground as round, optical defects occur at the edges usually. If you ever ground your own astronomical mirror you would be painfully aware of this phenomenon. And the mounting of a lens in a rectangular cell would also prove problematic. The mounting flanges would have to follow the shape of the lens it is holding, whereas a round lens has an even surface to mount to. If ground as a rectangle, the lens defects that always occur near the edges, would intrude into the image area and create poor contrast and color issues. I have seen vids that show when a higher end lens grouping is assembled, they are tested, and elements rotated before locking in place to optimize image quality! With a rectangular lens that ability is lost. So lots of reasons we do not see rectangular lens elements, though an interesting concept, shows that someone is not afraid to think"what if".
Maybe the best advice to be had is to post your query in the Macro section. There are macro and micro photographers in that forum that use microscope objectives, bellows, and stackshot. I am playing with that type of equipment myself and suspect that the depth of field may be a tiny fraction of a millimeter and easy to miss having one frame in focus if your stackshot steps are too large, or too small. Is your stackshot adjusted for the smallest step increments? If it is you may not even be close enough to the correct focus point, your camera must have the perfect focus somewhere in the middle of the stack of images taken for it to give you a close to perfect focus. If you shoot with 1 micron steps your whole stack may be on one side or the other of the correct focus. If your stackshot steps are too large, and your subject is flat, it is easy to miss the correct focus point if your stackshot, as it is set up, takes too large of steps and exposes an image on either side of the true focus point needed but not at the correct focus point. SO there are several possible culprits that can cause your problem. Narrow it down and the answer will come to you!
If you still have it, I will take it Wes.
I retired from the photography business three years ago. Back then almost all wedding work was done in highest rez JPEGs. Only saw RAW used in difficult conditions that may indeed require further work, or a massive blowup required. Myself and my colleagues custom color balanced when moving into different lighting conditions. If the photographer has to shoot RAW then perhaps he has not mastered his craft? Of course the newest cameras can do more, and do it quickly. But I never had problems with a file I made being too small for the clients use.
All of the service printers and album makers required JPEGs exclusively, maybe that changed in the last couple years?
The thing I see overlooked here is that every commenter assumes a certain kind of service was contracted for. Basic service would be a photographer handing over a complete set of all files shot with no, or minimal editing performed (cheapest service). Next tier: a proof set shown to the newly weds, and then they pick out their favorites with the photographer making prints to sizes desired, or an album for them. The highest end may include proof inspection, sometimes not, and large coffee table albums created and supplied for the couple, parents albums, and large printed and framed images. And video, image slide shows, and other services are possible. The wedding contract is the sole determining factor on just what to expect. Not what some people assume is rightfully done! And yeah some of the highest end customers do not even want to see the proofs, they want and expect the best as the final product, not to be bothered with picking out images!
So "bleirer" set this straight, just what are the kids looking for? What contract did they sign? Good Luck from Cleveland!
Completely correct Gene51 ! When a vague question is asked innocently, follow up questions should be fed back. Macro is such a broad subject. It needs to be narrowed down, though most beginners only want to shoot a flower bud now and then, or a quick insect shot I suppose? For that use any close focusing zoom or simple closeup add on lenses can be useful? Why invest in, and carry around, more equipment until one knows for sure that macro is their passion. I have a pretty complete stable of Nikon and other macro/micro equipment and would not recommend anything unless I knew what that macro beginner wanted to shoot. There were a lot of great suggestions above, but too subjective usually, and reflects the respondents personal choices, and subject preferences, rather than practical unbiased advice. And unless the shooter only stuck to larger flowers and critters, then an auto focus and VR lens really has no practical need. Macro shooters most often use manual focus, usually they preset the focus depth and move the rig fore and aft to find the perfect focus point. I have both types of lenses and often choose the manual focus lens version, way lighter, and still very sharp.
Looks to be an impressive new tool for the Pro, but way outside the realm of reality for most of us due to price. But then when a large step is taken in lens development, the price is high at first. Maybe we will see this reach the amateur hands some day, if the price drops drastically some day, and mass production takes over. It will most interesting to hear how this lens compares optically to the herd?
I had sent in my D750 for the recall. Nikon replaced the shutter for free, but the rubber was loose at the lower flap pictured when I got it back, right out of the shipping box! All rubber was tight when I sent it in originally. I made the mistake of pressing the flap back into place and seeing it still ok in a few days, so just stored away the camera as I was busy doing a home remodel for my chief CFO, I call her "dear". I checked the camera a few weeks later and the tab popped up again. SO I called Nikon and after a week of dithering Nikon said to send it in. They sent me an estimate for $180 to replace the rubber. I complained and Nikon dithered for another week then said the best they can do is to discount it 25%. I said to send it back and I repaired it myself easily. I chalked up this service issue to my own bad decision to not call Nikon the moment I got the D750 back from them. And in fairness: Nikon paid the shipping both ways at no charge to me.
But to repair: I recommend rubber cement first, often works well, and it peels off cleanly if it does not work. Then, if the rubber cement failed, use contact cement, water based contact cement is not as sure grip, so I recommend the solvent based contact cement. NEVER use Epoxy unless you want a larger ticket repair some day in the future if the rubber ever needs to come off. And no matter which adhesive you decide to use, use it sparingly with a small artists brush.
Select pigment based inks used in an inkjet printer have been tested to a predicted 100 + year life! Yes not actual years but accelerated scientific testing. Look up the expert in his field: "Wilhelm Imaging Research" for more information. The Library of Congress trusts him with their collections, including those on constant display under harsh sunlight. I have used such inks and have never seen fading in some over ten years old and subject to sunlight at times of the day. Check back with me in 90 years and I may have more to say? Cone ink is a supplier often used, including kits to convert small cartridge printers to use bulk inks to save costs.
I will tell my wife of 45 years that joke! Pray for me!
Curious how Nikon always labelled their Macro lenses "micro". I have several (4) Nikkor "micro" lenses and love them. But in order to do true "Micro Photography" we enter the world beyond 1:1 reproduction that the above mentioned lenses stop at. And Nikon did make true Micro lenses but they are rare and pricey, and require a bellows or other equipment to function as intended. To go beyond 1:1 is a challenge and requires more than just a handheld macro lens. The only exception is the Canon Mde lens, which does not convert readily to use on a Nikon. And the Canon specialty lens really begs for a focusing rail and a tripod.
Back to the authors subject, if you truly want to do close to 1:1 work then get at least the 105 lens. An older manual focus micro nikkor works great on most dig nikon bodies, Quite cheap to purchase a nice one used, and any real macro work is best done using manual focus, and VR is not of much use beyond 1:3?
If you need the macro lens for stamp collecting, coin photos, or other non mobile subjects then save the money and get the 40 or 60 mm lens. It is great for copy work. But if the subject is alive and shy, then you need the 105 to stay away from the subject, or the 200mm or longer if the subject is dangerous to the photographer. That said the 105 or 200 works fine on the coins, stamps too!
As mentioned: you can save a bundle if you purchase a Nikon Ai, or Ais manual focus lens, and macro work is rarely spontaneous, it is planned and careful. And the older lenses are still tack sharp.
You have the perfect camera body to use any Nikon lens. There is no reason to Ai convert them. Just use them per the owners manual of your Df body. As far as Ai converting, John White does them, I have a lens he did. It will look OK when he is does it. Not like out of the Nikon factory, but nice none the less. The file or dremel tool jobs looks rather mutilated unless you are really skilled in the use of hand tools, and I never saw any of those hack jobs that resembled a factory job. Sorry guys, no offense meant, but I am a retired machinist and those hacks make me cringe! Years ago I did conversions for a camera shop. Used a rotary table on a milling machine, with a specific jig constructed to hold the ring firmly. Even without painting the finished product, the lens looked nice afterwards. The Nikon factory did them really beautifully: used replacement aperture indexing rings and simply replaced the ring to do the conversion. Nice smooth anodizing on the factory rings. Those rings have dried up mostly, but you could search Ebay for a ring? There used to be some floating around, as little as 6 months ago I saw one for sale! Cannot remember under what name the part was listed. I think Nikon dumped their parts inventory and decided to no longer do the job? That business decision is seen to often in todays world.
And there were some lens rings, third party as I recall, that needed a tab ADDED to the ring to provide Ai ability. The ring was specifically machined shallower than what nikon used, so it did not damage the camera tab on the body of the camera when attaching a lens. So whoever suggested that idea maybe was not crazy, that type ring was not often seen, But I remember them! good luck with whatever decision you make.
The price you paid is a pittance for that lens and the rest of the booty! And besides if you some day get another Nikon body maybe it will have the autofocus motor? Most of the slightly higher priced bodies have that option.