Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quality Nikon macro lens - extreme magnification

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:15:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
range. The problems with the one I have is a very limited range of
focus (about 40/50% of the image is in focus when at minimum distance,
~3.5"), relatively mild magnification, and I'm not a big fan of the
manual focus as this will make all but the stillest of still
impossible.

I wouldn't mind getting a great used lens rather than a mid-range new
one. The budget is in the $400 to $600 range. Also, can someone post
some pics that they have taken with a lens of this ilk?

Regards,

Ben

PS - sorry for the cross post to alt.photography, as this is somewhat
of a thread in progress...there are minor mods, in my defense!
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:07:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
> that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
> range.

What do you mean by extreme magnification? Maybe you want a microscope
adapter.

> The problems with the one I have is a very limited range of
> focus (about 40/50% of the image is in focus when at minimum distance,
> ~3.5"),

Yes, you will have limited DOF in the macro range. That's inherent.
Get used to it. You can get a bit more DOF by stopping way down, of
course.

> relatively mild magnification, and I'm not a big fan of the
> manual focus as this will make all but the stillest of still
> impossible.

I dunno, an awful lot of excellent shots of moving subjects (sports
etc.) were taken before AF became common.

> I wouldn't mind getting a great used lens rather than a mid-range new
> one. The budget is in the $400 to $600 range. Also, can someone post
> some pics that they have taken with a lens of this ilk?

Why don't you say exactly what kind of pictures you want to shoot?
It's impossible to make recommendations based on your vague descriptions
so far.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
> that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
> range.

As Sheldon mentions, the shorter lens in macro mode will get you a very
shallow DOF at a low-f setting. The fix for this is higher-f to bring
more into focus. I don't think you'll find much variation between
manufacturers here.

Below are some fixed-length macro lenses... As you look at them, watch
out for the "with optional life-size attachment" caveat, which will add
to the cost to actually get 1:1 magnification.

100mm 1:1 lenses:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

50mm 1:1 lenses:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...

And if you've got deep pockets...
150mm 1:1 f2.8 (nice!):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
180mm 1:1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
200mm 1:2
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...


If you don't really need to be up-close, a longer lens should let you
get the same shot from a greater distance, but usually in exchange for
higher f-stop. (e.g., where you might spook the subject by getting
close with a short lens)

Cheers,
Richard
Related resources
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:37:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Richard H." <rh86@no.spam> writes:
> Below are some fixed-length macro lenses... As you look at them,
> watch out for the "with optional life-size attachment" caveat, which
> will add to the cost to actually get 1:1 magnification.

I'm actually pretty impressed with Annika's recent MP-E shots. That
lens goes to 5:1.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:53:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> I have a manual focus 55, but fell in love with a 105 f 2.8 AF I had a
> chance to play with.

Which is my point exactly - shooting anything but the stillest of
subjects will be impossible with this lens. For this reason, I am
looking around for a different one.

Ben
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:57:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Richard H." <rh86@no.spam> writes:
> > Below are some fixed-length macro lenses... As you look at them,
> > watch out for the "with optional life-size attachment" caveat, which
> > will add to the cost to actually get 1:1 magnification.
>
> I'm actually pretty impressed with Annika's recent MP-E shots. That
> lens goes to 5:1.

Now we're getting somewhere. Bret's macro lens is along the lines of
what I'm looking for. Now, what's the Nikon equivalent of the MP-E?
Is the 60MM AF Micro-Nikkor able to deliver similar results?

Thanks Paul,

Ben
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 3:57:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118510154.819093.182430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
> that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
> range. The problems with the one I have is a very limited range of
> focus (about 40/50% of the image is in focus when at minimum distance,
> ~3.5"), relatively mild magnification, and I'm not a big fan of the
> manual focus as this will make all but the stillest of still
> impossible.
>
> I wouldn't mind getting a great used lens rather than a mid-range new
> one. The budget is in the $400 to $600 range. Also, can someone post
> some pics that they have taken with a lens of this ilk?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben
>
IMO your problem is depth of field, not the lens. You're going to have to
stop the lens down to increase your depth of field and use slower shutter
speeds or higher ISO speeds. When shooting something like a flower, keep in
mind if you focus on the top of the flower half your depth of field will be
in thin air, so you have to learn to focus at the center point of your DOF.
I have a manual focus 55, but fell in love with a 105 f 2.8 AF I had a
chance to play with.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 4:11:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> > I'm actually pretty impressed with Annika's recent MP-E shots. That
> > lens goes to 5:1.
>
> Now we're getting somewhere. Bret's macro lens is along the lines of
> what I'm looking for. Now, what's the Nikon equivalent of the MP-E?
> Is the 60MM AF Micro-Nikkor able to deliver similar results?

There is no direct equivalent. You'd have to put the 60mm on a
bellows or extension tubes.

I have the impression that what you really want is to use your DSLR in
point and shoot mode at 5x, so you can aim the camera handheld at a
small bug or something and snap away and get well-exposed shots that
are automatically in focus and so forth. That does not exist. Bret
does a lot of work to set up those shots.

Note also that the MP-E is a manual focus lens. Here's a review:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/mp-e-65.html
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> What do you want to photograph? Bugs like Bret? Even smaller stuff,
> like bacteria? Maybe you want to read some books or web sites about
> macro shooting techniques before going out and buying a lens.

Bugs like Bret, water up close, flowers/wildlife, body parts,
compositions of my own, anything that I think will look really cool
when magnified greatly.

> > > Note also that the MP-E is a manual focus lens. Here's a review:
> > Which certainly makes his shots that much more impressive.
>
> AF simply doesn't help at such close distances.

I went back and looked at some of his macro shots, and the "action"
ones seem to have been taken with a different lens, some at 400mm.
Still doesn't diminish how impressive the shots are, but it makes it
more understandable to me.

Ben

PS - Can you recommend a tube for that lens?
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:08:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> I went back and looked at some of his macro shots, and the "action"
> ones seem to have been taken with a different lens, some at 400mm.
> Still doesn't diminish how impressive the shots are, but it makes it
> more understandable to me.

With a lens that long you can get a powerful macro effect with a
diopter filter like a Nikon 5T or 6T. Or you could reverse-mount a
shorter lens with a macro coupler. Magnification is f1/f2 where f1 is
focal length the lens on the camera, and f2 is the FL of the lens on
the front. So if you have a 105mm lens and mount a 50mm lens on the
front, you get about 2:1 magnification.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:23:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> > I went back and looked at some of his macro shots, and the "action"
> > ones seem to have been taken with a different lens, some at 400mm.
> > Still doesn't diminish how impressive the shots are, but it makes it
> > more understandable to me.
>
> With a lens that long you can get a powerful macro effect with a
> diopter filter like a Nikon 5T or 6T. Or you could reverse-mount a
> shorter lens with a macro coupler. Magnification is f1/f2 where f1 is
> focal length the lens on the camera, and f2 is the FL of the lens on
> the front. So if you have a 105mm lens and mount a 50mm lens on the
> front, you get about 2:1 magnification.

shoot me an email if you get a sec, Paul...

Ben
June 11, 2005 6:30:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
> that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
> range.

-No lens- will change this on a given camera format. The narrow range of
focus is directly tied to the amount of image magnification vs the format
of the camera. Changing lenses and/or focal lengths has absolutely NO
effect on this. The only thing that changes the focus depth at the same
magnification is the f stop used. Then you get into the sharpness loss from
stopping down to far which is what makes macro work so difficult. Objects
with lots of depth are almost impossible to capture in a single shot. There
is software that lets you combine multiple images to create more DOF in
those situations. The smaller sensor cameras have an advantage as far as
DOV in this type of situation.

>
> I wouldn't mind getting a great used lens rather than a mid-range new
> one. The budget is in the $400 to $600 range.

Wouldn't matter if your spend $6000, it isn't going to change optical law.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 9:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> And you think it's going to have more depth of field at the same
> magnification than what you're using now?

Thanks to all of the helpful responses in the thread. Oh, and thank
you, too, Stacey!

Regards,

Ben
June 11, 2005 11:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I have a manual focus 55, but fell in love with a 105 f 2.8 AF I had a
>> chance to play with.
>
> Which is my point exactly - shooting anything but the stillest of
> subjects will be impossible with this lens. For this reason, I am
> looking around for a different one.
>


What you don't understand is changing to another lens or focal length isn't
going to change the depth of field at all. It isn't like they can
magicallty make it have more DOF at a given magnification! Then again
you'll have to waste some money to figure this out for yourself it seems..

--

Stacey
June 11, 2005 11:25:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>> "Richard H." <rh86@no.spam> writes:
>> > Below are some fixed-length macro lenses... As you look at them,
>> > watch out for the "with optional life-size attachment" caveat, which
>> > will add to the cost to actually get 1:1 magnification.
>>
>> I'm actually pretty impressed with Annika's recent MP-E shots. That
>> lens goes to 5:1.
>
> Now we're getting somewhere. Bret's macro lens is along the lines of
> what I'm looking for.

And you think it's going to have more depth of field at the same
magnification than what you're using now?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:08:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
>
>>I went back and looked at some of his macro shots, and the "action"
>>ones seem to have been taken with a different lens, some at 400mm.
>>Still doesn't diminish how impressive the shots are, but it makes it
>>more understandable to me.
>
>
> With a lens that long you can get a powerful macro effect with a
> diopter filter like a Nikon 5T or 6T. Or you could reverse-mount a
> shorter lens with a macro coupler. Magnification is f1/f2 where f1 is
> focal length the lens on the camera, and f2 is the FL of the lens on
> the front. So if you have a 105mm lens and mount a 50mm lens on the
> front, you get about 2:1 magnification.


I think Brett's super macro lens is more capable at those preposterous
magnifications because it's got a tiny piece of glass on the front and
that little bugger is ground to the exacting standards needed for that
magnification. I've played with some strange setups: most recently a
45mm reversed on a 200mm zoom plus 2x teleconverter and it will indeed
get to those preposterous magnifications but the quality is pretty bad.
A full frame looks just barely tolerable (but still bad) resized to
640x425 for web. The 200mm lens is exquisite at 200mm, great at 400 but
that's 5 feet away. With the 45mm reversed on the end it's a couple
inches away & that huge 77mm front element (plus all the dozen or two
inside) is only using a tiny fraction of it's diameter, as if putting a
12x teleconverter on it & trying to scope small craters on the moon. It
just wasn't designed for that.

My guess is that the way to go would be to somehow attach a microscope
to your camera since those are designed for that level of magnification.
I have no idea how to do that but I suspect even a cheap microscope
would do better than an odd conversion like this.

Still, it is fun to play with. I just spent a few hours with it so far &
may be able to get a little better results:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:03:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:

> I think Brett's super macro lens is more capable at those preposterous
> magnifications because it's got a tiny piece of glass on the front and
> that little bugger is ground to the exacting standards needed for that
> magnification.

I wish Nikon would come out with an equivalent piece of glass. If they did
I would call B&H and order one tomorrow.



Rita
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
> > I think Brett's super macro lens is more capable at those preposterous
> > magnifications because it's got a tiny piece of glass on the front and
> > that little bugger is ground to the exacting standards needed for that
> > magnification.
>
> I wish Nikon would come out with an equivalent piece of glass. If they did
> I would call B&H and order one tomorrow.

This was my question, not all the DOF concerns that have been
attributed to me! And I agree, I would place my order along with you.

Ben
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:51:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
> > I think Brett's super macro lens is more capable at those preposterous
> > magnifications because it's got a tiny piece of glass on the front and
> > that little bugger is ground to the exacting standards needed for that
> > magnification.
>
> I wish Nikon would come out with an equivalent piece of glass. If they did
> I would call B&H and order one tomorrow.

This was my question, not all the DOF concerns that have been
attributed to me! And I agree, I would place my order along with you.

Ben
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:08:55 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have the Phoenix 100mm AF version of the Vivitar/Phoenix/Etc. family
of this lens and I can't say enough good about it's image quality. I
think it's the third or fourth one down in Richard's list. The lens
body is cheap hard plastic and the AF is pretty noisy, but the image is
great and it's only $140 or less brand new, so if you're careful with
it, you should get great results for very little money. BTW, the 1:1
diopter is included unless something has changed since I bought it. I
was lucky enough to have an old set of diopter lenses I used on an old
Mamiya SLR that had a 49mm filter thread size, so I can even go bigger
by stacking if I sacrifice a little image quality. I repeat.. I just
love it. It's gotta' be the bargain hunters buy of the decade in
lenses.


Richard H. wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
> > that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
> > range.
>
> As Sheldon mentions, the shorter lens in macro mode will get you a very
> shallow DOF at a low-f setting. The fix for this is higher-f to bring
> more into focus. I don't think you'll find much variation between
> manufacturers here.
>
> Below are some fixed-length macro lenses... As you look at them, watch
> out for the "with optional life-size attachment" caveat, which will add
> to the cost to actually get 1:1 magnification.
>
> 100mm 1:1 lenses:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
>
> 50mm 1:1 lenses:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
>
> And if you've got deep pockets...
> 150mm 1:1 f2.8 (nice!):
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> 180mm 1:1
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> 200mm 1:2
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
>
>
> If you don't really need to be up-close, a longer lens should let you
> get the same shot from a greater distance, but usually in exchange for
> higher f-stop. (e.g., where you might spook the subject by getting
> close with a short lens)
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 3:31:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kitt wrote:

> I have the Phoenix 100mm AF version of the Vivitar/Phoenix/Etc. family
> of this lens and I can't say enough good about it's image quality. I
> think it's the third or fourth one down in Richard's list.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
That sounds like a good deal indeed.

According to B&H, the min focal distance is ~17 inches - is this
correct? (They have it wrong for my lens, which will focus down to
~1.5-2.0" in macro mode.)

How would you compare the image size at 17" with the lens cap shots
taken below at 105mm (2.5" distance)?
http://www.pbase.com/hornbaker/macro_tests

Cheers,
Richard
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 3:41:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have a 55mm MF Nikon 2.8 "micro" lens, and am looking for something
> that can offer _extreme_ magnification and a larger focus area at close
> range.

Ben,

I've launched a space on PBase with some sample macro shots using a
Nikon zoom/macro lens. See http://www.pbase.com/hornbaker/macro_tests

I was actually surprised at the results, and you'll see why you're
getting poor shots shooting f2.8 in macro mode. I never thought I'd be
saying this, but I wish my lens went smaller than f22.

Also, you can see the results at 50mm vs. 105mm, if you're going to get
a fixed lens. All things being equal, I think I'd opt for a longer
macro lens, as long as it still had a short min focal distance. For the
results you're describing, you'll probably want a 1:1 lens.

I'll be interested to hear what Kitt has to say about the Phoenix lens,
because the focal distance can have a huge impact on the end result.
The first pen pic I put on PBase was taken at 105mm and 13.5" - even
shorter than the min distance posted for most of the fixed macro lenses.
In practice, I can move up to ~2.0" from the subject, yielding about a
3x increase in size. (I don't know if this is a unique feature of this
lens, or the specs listed on B&H for the macro lenses are generaly wrong
about the min focal distance, because they all seem about 10x higher.)

Richard
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 4:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> > I went back and looked at some of his macro shots, and the "action"
> > ones seem to have been taken with a different lens, some at 400mm.
> > Still doesn't diminish how impressive the shots are, but it makes it
> > more understandable to me.
>
> With a lens that long you can get a powerful macro effect with a
> diopter filter like a Nikon 5T or 6T. Or you could reverse-mount a
> shorter lens with a macro coupler. Magnification is f1/f2 where f1 is
> focal length the lens on the camera, and f2 is the FL of the lens on
> the front. So if you have a 105mm lens and mount a 50mm lens on the
> front, you get about 2:1 magnification.

It appears as if the most cost effective solution at this point is to
go with the following setup:

Camera > Nikon 55MM "Micro" Lens > Nikon 4T "Close Up Lens". The 55MM
lens is a 52MM filter size, thus the 4T instead of the 5T or 6T.

Thanks for the help, Paul.

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 4:03:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> > With a lens that long you can get a powerful macro effect with a
> > diopter filter like a Nikon 5T or 6T. Or you could reverse-mount a
> > shorter lens with a macro coupler. Magnification is f1/f2 where f1 is
> > focal length the lens on the camera, and f2 is the FL of the lens on
> > the front. So if you have a 105mm lens and mount a 50mm lens on the
> > front, you get about 2:1 magnification.
>
> It appears as if the most cost effective solution at this point is to
> go with the following setup:
>
> Camera > Nikon 55MM "Micro" Lens > Nikon 4T "Close Up Lens". The 55MM
> lens is a 52MM filter size, thus the 4T instead of the 5T or 6T.
>
> Thanks for the help, Paul.

No no, those diopter filters are best for long lenses, like 200mm or
longer. For the 55/2.8 you want the extension tube.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 9:37:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:22:21 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>> I have a manual focus 55, but fell in love with a 105 f 2.8 AF I had a
>>> chance to play with.
>>
>> Which is my point exactly - shooting anything but the stillest of
>> subjects will be impossible with this lens. For this reason, I am
>> looking around for a different one.
>>
>
>
>What you don't understand is changing to another lens or focal length isn't
>going to change the depth of field at all. It isn't like they can
>magicallty make it have more DOF at a given magnification! Then again
>you'll have to waste some money to figure this out for yourself it seems..

It is true, DOF at the same aperture setting and at the same
magnification does not depend on focal length. In other words, you
will get absolutely the same DOF, all other factors being the same,
with 55mm, 105mm or any other focal length, any lens brand and any
optical design (possibly as long as it not a composite optical system
like a microscope or telescope). Even a pure reflector lens without
transmission optical elements will give you the same DOF. Focal
length, however, does affect the width of the angle of view, so the
background and composition of a non-flat scene _will_ look different
in the picture.

The only things you can do to change DOF:

1 - close the diaphragm. This increases also diffraction, i.e., the
picture (including the in-focus areas) will become less sharp. At very
closed diaphragm, the picture ends up being less sharp than at more
open settings. Each lens has an optimal aperture, beyond which
diffraction begins to affect the picture noticeably. So your diaphrag
settings will be a tradeoff between DOF and overall sharpness.
While there _might_ be slight differences in optimal aperture among
different lenses, depending on the optical design of the lenses and
shape of the diaphragm (I am not positive there are indeed such
differences), they must be small.
However, there is less diffraction at longer focal lengths at the
same diaphragm opening. This is because the diaphragm opening at f/16
at 105mm focal length is almost twice the area than a 55mm at f/16. So
you can use longer focal lengths and smaller diaphragm openings
(=higher diaphragm stops) before diffraction limits the picture
resolution. Whether a longer focal length is acceptable for your
particular picture, of course depends on a lot of other factors
(nature of the subject and background, composition, light source,
availability of a steady tripod or macro stand, availability of
working room around the subject, availability of money to buy long,
big, heavy and expensive macro lenses, etc.).

2 - make a stack of pictures with a rather open diaphragm, while
gradually moving the camera toward the object or away from the object
between shots. This will give you a set of pictures with the focus
plane gradually moving from one picture to the next. Post-process the
stack in software with one of several software packages (e.g.,
Registax, Helicon Focus, a few others I don't recall now). The
software chooses the parts in focus from each picture and combines
them together into an extended focus picture. Not always good, because
different algorithms may produce different artefacts, but often better
than any optical DOF at high magnification. Of course, applicable only
to immobile subjects.

3 - use a composite optical system, i.e. a microscope with separate
objective and ocular (or projection lens). I _believe_ this gives you
a higher DOF than a simple optical system (=macro lens), but
diffraction cannot be avoided as often forces the use of very low
numerical apertures in the objective, so this is also a tradeoff.

4 - there were once experimental devices called scanning optical
microscopes, which worked a little like stacking but illuminated the
object on a very narrow plane and a long exposure was needed to move
the illumination plane along the depth direction. Plenty of
characteristic artefacts, and the hardware was quite expensive.
Today's confocal laser microscopes work in a partially similar way,
but are used only at very high magnification (AFAIK) and the image is
a computer-generated rendition, not a true picture. I have not looked
on the web for scanning optical microscopes and there _might_ be some
commercial product, but I do know I have never seen one in practical
use in a research lab.

5 - use a scanning electron microscope.

6 - use an atomic force microscope.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 9:37:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Deedee Tee wrote:
>
> The only things you can do to change DOF:
>
> 1 - close the diaphragm. This increases also diffraction, i.e., the
> picture (including the in-focus areas) will become less sharp. At very
> closed diaphragm, the picture ends up being less sharp than at more
> open settings. Each lens has an optimal aperture, beyond which
> diffraction begins to affect the picture noticeably. So your diaphrag
> settings will be a tradeoff between DOF and overall sharpness.
> While there _might_ be slight differences in optimal aperture among
> different lenses, depending on the optical design of the lenses and
> shape of the diaphragm (I am not positive there are indeed such
> differences), they must be small.
> However, there is less diffraction at longer focal lengths at the
> same diaphragm opening. This is because the diaphragm opening at f/16
> at 105mm focal length is almost twice the area than a 55mm at f/16. So
> you can use longer focal lengths and smaller diaphragm openings
> (=higher diaphragm stops) before diffraction limits the picture
> resolution.


In another one of these macro threads, there was debate on which end to
stop down with a reversed-lens-on-a-normal-lens setup. I tested this:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photograp...;

and there is a big difference. Stopping down the reversed lens creates a
softer image with less flare & reflections if I'm interpreting
correctly. Stopping down the lens attached to the body creates a sharper
image but unnatural looking. I'm not clear how diffraction plays into
this trade-off.



> ...
> 2 - make a stack of pictures with a rather open diaphragm, while
> gradually moving the camera toward the object or away from the object
> between shots. This will give you a set of pictures with the focus
> plane gradually moving from one picture to the next. Post-process the
> stack in software with one of several software packages (e.g.,
> Registax, Helicon Focus, a few others I don't recall now). The
> software chooses the parts in focus from each picture and combines
> them together into an extended focus picture. Not always good, because
> different algorithms may produce different artefacts, but often better
> than any optical DOF at high magnification. Of course, applicable only
> to immobile subjects.


I believe it's possible to use a panorama stitching program like the
free panotools that preserves layers. Then you have to go in & manually
erase out the layers.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 3:24:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> writes:
> I think Brett's super macro lens is more capable at those preposterous
> magnifications because it's got a tiny piece of glass on the front and
> that little bugger is ground to the exacting standards needed for that
> magnification. I've played with some strange setups: most recently a
> 45mm reversed on a 200mm zoom plus 2x teleconverter and it will indeed
> get to those preposterous magnifications but the quality is pretty bad.

I don't know that the MP-E is much different than an ordinary macro
lens permanently mounted on a bellows-like setup. A 55/2.8 Micro
Nikkor might work out about the same way.

Your 200/45 setup is a lot different, especially with the 2x TC.
Also, that would give you about 10:1 magnification, while the MP-E
only goes to 5:1.

Microscopes seem to start at 15:1 or so. Most decent ones will have
T-mount adapters available.

I had half-decent results reverse mounting a 28/2.0 Nikkor to the
front of my Olympus E-100RS (small sensor, 7-70mm zoom) giving the
equivalent of about 10:1 magnification in terms of filling the frame.
There was some vignetting at large apertures and I'll try again with a
50mm on the front.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 7:06:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> writes:
>
>>I think Brett's super macro lens is more capable at those preposterous
>>magnifications because it's got a tiny piece of glass on the front and
>>that little bugger is ground to the exacting standards needed for that
>>magnification. I've played with some strange setups: most recently a
>>45mm reversed on a 200mm zoom plus 2x teleconverter and it will indeed
>>get to those preposterous magnifications but the quality is pretty bad.
>
>
> I don't know that the MP-E is much different than an ordinary macro
> lens permanently mounted on a bellows-like setup. A 55/2.8 Micro
> Nikkor might work out about the same way.


The photo of that lens looks like the front element is very small:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/mp-e-65.html
It's widest view is 1:1. I assume it doesn't focus to infinity?


>
> Your 200/45 setup is a lot different, especially with the 2x TC.


The other problem with my setup is it's a zoom & has a bazillion pieces
of glass in it, even if they are pretty decent.


> Also, that would give you about 10:1 magnification, while the MP-E
> only goes to 5:1.
>
> Microscopes seem to start at 15:1 or so. Most decent ones will have
> T-mount adapters available.
>
> I had half-decent results reverse mounting a 28/2.0 Nikkor to the
> front of my Olympus E-100RS (small sensor, 7-70mm zoom) giving the
> equivalent of about 10:1 magnification in terms of filling the frame.
> There was some vignetting at large apertures and I'll try again with a
> 50mm on the front.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I ended up buying a 52MM reverse adaptor for the 55MM lens. It looks
like I'm getting at least 2:1 now.

Hunt wrote:
> In article <1118516039.776498.28840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, kombi45
> @yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Sheldon wrote:
> >
> >> I have a manual focus 55, but fell in love with a 105 f 2.8 AF I had a
> >> chance to play with.
> >
> >Which is my point exactly - shooting anything but the stillest of
> >subjects will be impossible with this lens. For this reason, I am
> >looking around for a different one.
> >
> >Ben
>
> Ben, as others have stated, it isn't the lens. One partial solution is to
> build a macro-strobe system, so you CAN stop down. Most Nikkor macro/micros go
> down to ~f/32. All you need is more light, and a macro-stobe system is the
> best way to do it.
>
> Hunt
June 13, 2005 9:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1118516039.776498.28840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, kombi45
@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I have a manual focus 55, but fell in love with a 105 f 2.8 AF I had a
>> chance to play with.
>
>Which is my point exactly - shooting anything but the stillest of
>subjects will be impossible with this lens. For this reason, I am
>looking around for a different one.
>
>Ben

Ben, as others have stated, it isn't the lens. One partial solution is to
build a macro-strobe system, so you CAN stop down. Most Nikkor macro/micros go
down to ~f/32. All you need is more light, and a macro-stobe system is the
best way to do it.

Hunt
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 10:14:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Just FYI, some macro equipment that could be given a thought (alhough
probably not for professional use):

Kenko makes a macro lens for SLR cameras that goes from 0.25x to 1x
(0.7 to 1.7x with a special extension tube). Diaphragm seems fixed at
f/8. This might or might not have some uses. See
http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/ecatalog/proaccessory/496...
(unfortunately in Japanese, but you can get an idea from the
pictures). You would need to use a Nikon DSLR in manual mode though.

Kenko also makes a pinhole equivalent to 50mm f/250. It is of course
affected both by softness (not being a lens) and diffraction, but it
might have some uses in macro (I should expect a DOF from infinite to
less than 1 cm from the front). You can make your own pinholes to
experiment with, of course.

I saw weeks ago a (60mm?) macro lens in Yodobashi Camera in Shinjuku,
somewhat similar to Kenko's but another brand (sorry, something
totally unknown that I forgot since). It also had a LED illuminator
accessory, and apparently could focus to 1-2 cm from the front lens,
so the max magnification should be quite high. The whole thing looked
almost like a prototype, down to an apparently homemade album of test
shots. The price was quite high, if I remember correctly.

The Grayfield Optical Inc publicise what they call a 3D Optical
microscope, which they claim has a DOF of up to 30mm. See
http://www.grayfieldoptical.co.uk/docs/3DOMa.pdf. I can see no
explanation of the design or principles, nor of prices for the
equipment (the only things for sale seem to be a demo video of the
microscopes and, on another site, a ludicrously expensive 60x macro
attachment for Coolpix cameras). A web search shows that this company
is often mentioned in connection with other activities ranging from
very unlikely and unproven "scientific" theories to outlandish claims
of "revolutionary" discoveries, with the myth of the Rife microscope
(an "invention" from the 1930's claiming to achieve far higher
resolution than the theoretical maximum for photon optics) figuring
prominently among them. So this company, its web site and its products
may well be no more than a smokescreen. But you are welcome to form
your own opinion.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

scamper wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Here are a couple of thoughts on macro/micro photography:
>
> 1. In the macro/micro range, the focus/distance interact. Use the
> focus ring to choose the size of the image and move closer/farther to
> actually focus.
>
> When you're shooting a dynamic subject, try this: Choose an object
> about the size of the subject you want to shoot (i.e. a flower that
> you'll want to show with the butterfly on it). Focus in on the flower
> and get your sizing and settings ready in advance. Then, without
> changing the focus, chase butterflies by moving the camera forward and
> back to achieve focus.
>
> Don't worry too much about auto-focus. I doubt you'd have much luck
> with it in the macro range. Focus changes image size - distance
> controls focus.
>
> 2. For depth of field, the other writers are right. You need a smaller
> aperture to get better depth of field and for that, you'll need better
> light. You can try reflectors if your subjects allow it. For chasing
> butterflies, you'll probably need one (or more) flashes mounted on a
> bracket and precalibrated.
>
> As stated, once you get past a certain aperture, (f8-f16, depending on
> focal length) you get more depth of field but lose overall sharpness on
> the picture.
>
> 3. A longer focal length macro lens lets you get a similar shot at a
> greater distance (good for chasing butterflies). This doesn't change
> your depth of field all that much, but it makes the background fuzzier
> than you'd get with a wider-angle lens.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Ed

Thanks, Ed. I reversed the 55MM lens, and the cool thing about that is
the DOF changes are automatically seen when adjusting aperture.
However, at 55MM it's tough to get close to anything living! Also, can
the Nikon AF macro/micro lenses be used in manual focus as well?? I am
thinking about going with a 105MM lens new. I noticed a tiny knick on
the front glass of the used one I have, as well.

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 5:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben,

Here are a couple of thoughts on macro/micro photography:

1. In the macro/micro range, the focus/distance interact. Use the
focus ring to choose the size of the image and move closer/farther to
actually focus.

When you're shooting a dynamic subject, try this: Choose an object
about the size of the subject you want to shoot (i.e. a flower that
you'll want to show with the butterfly on it). Focus in on the flower
and get your sizing and settings ready in advance. Then, without
changing the focus, chase butterflies by moving the camera forward and
back to achieve focus.

Don't worry too much about auto-focus. I doubt you'd have much luck
with it in the macro range. Focus changes image size - distance
controls focus.

2. For depth of field, the other writers are right. You need a smaller
aperture to get better depth of field and for that, you'll need better
light. You can try reflectors if your subjects allow it. For chasing
butterflies, you'll probably need one (or more) flashes mounted on a
bracket and precalibrated.

As stated, once you get past a certain aperture, (f8-f16, depending on
focal length) you get more depth of field but lose overall sharpness on
the picture.

3. A longer focal length macro lens lets you get a similar shot at a
greater distance (good for chasing butterflies). This doesn't change
your depth of field all that much, but it makes the background fuzzier
than you'd get with a wider-angle lens.

Good luck,

Ed
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 9:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Deedee Tee wrote:
>
> > Focal
> > length, however, does affect the width of the angle of view, so the
> > background and composition of a non-flat scene _will_ look different
> > in the picture.
> >
>
>
> To maintain the same magnification, you have to change the position from the
> subject so the perspective changes but the DOF at the focus plane given the
> same magnification doesn't change. That's why they make lots of longer
> tele macro lenses 'cause it doesn't cost you any DOF and give you more lens
> to subject distance for lighting. The whole "shorter lenses have more DOF"
> hype/lie/BS falls apart when you are doing macro work.

Should I be concerned with greater vibration in a macro lens at longer
focal lengths? Just shooting about 100 or so shots to get started with
a 55MM up close lens, I found it EXTREMELY difficult to maintain focus.
I ask because I am considering purchasing the 105MM Nikon
macro/micro/up-close lens.

Ben
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 11:08:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

> I use my 105mm exclusively handheld and really enjoy it. The thing to
> remember is using good lighting techniques and enough light when getting in
> close. Here is a pic I took shortly after getting the 105mm. The head of
> the mushroom isn't that much bigger than 0.25".
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg
>
> Here is a test shot of a penny with a 50mm f/1.4 reversed in front of the
> 105mm.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg
>
> I always brace myself and hold my breath when hitting the shutter. I would
> definitely get the 105mm as it gives you more working distance that allows
> for better lighting techniques.

Thanks, Rita, good stuff! Here's some results I got with the Nikon
55MM reverse mounted to my N80 (the D70S will be on my doorstep
tomorrow!), with Kodak 400UC, and scanned into a cheap-o Epson
Perfection 2580:

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44812370

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44811780

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44812700 (for comic relief)

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44813462

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44814224

http://www.pbase.com/sirchandestroy/image/44814746

The last one is a perfect example where a digital camera would save me
a bunch of time. I (accidentally) did a great job of focus-bracketing.
I have another shot of the insect where he is completely out of focus,
except the tentacles, and the surface (a porch lamp) is in prefect
focus. I'm currently working to get them together.

Anway, thanks for your input - I think I will be picking up the 105MM
lens. Oh, and I know it's probably been covered, but why reverse mount
a macro to a xx-xxx lens?

Regards,

Ben
June 14, 2005 11:13:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Deedee Tee wrote:

> Focal
> length, however, does affect the width of the angle of view, so the
> background and composition of a non-flat scene _will_ look different
> in the picture.
>


To maintain the same magnification, you have to change the position from the
subject so the perspective changes but the DOF at the focus plane given the
same magnification doesn't change. That's why they make lots of longer
tele macro lenses 'cause it doesn't cost you any DOF and give you more lens
to subject distance for lighting. The whole "shorter lenses have more DOF"
hype/lie/BS falls apart when you are doing macro work.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:18:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> Should I be concerned with greater vibration in a macro lens at longer
> focal lengths? Just shooting about 100 or so shots to get started
> with a 55MM up close lens, I found it EXTREMELY difficult to maintain
> focus. I ask because I am considering purchasing the 105MM Nikon
> macro/micro/up-close lens.

I use my 105mm exclusively handheld and really enjoy it. The thing to
remember is using good lighting techniques and enough light when getting in
close. Here is a pic I took shortly after getting the 105mm. The head of
the mushroom isn't that much bigger than 0.25".

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Mush_00.jpg

Here is a test shot of a penny with a 50mm f/1.4 reversed in front of the
105mm.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2003/eBay/Penny_a.jpg

I always brace myself and hold my breath when hitting the shutter. I would
definitely get the 105mm as it gives you more working distance that allows
for better lighting techniques.



Rita
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 3:01:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> Should I be concerned with greater vibration in a macro lens at longer
> focal lengths? Just shooting about 100 or so shots to get started with
> a 55MM up close lens, I found it EXTREMELY difficult to maintain focus.

I think most of your shots will be out of focus no matter what you do.
You have to just shoot a lot and pick the good frames. Digital makes
that a lot easier.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:29:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
> > Anway, thanks for your input - I think I will be picking up the 105MM
> > lens. Oh, and I know it's probably been covered, but why reverse mount
> > a macro to a xx-xxx lens?
>
> You'll really enjoy the 105mm. There really wasn't any specific reason for
> me putting a 50mm f/1.4 in front of the 105mm other than both of them had
> the same diameter filter threads. I tried a couple other lenses in front
> and I find the 50mm is the best choice for my use. All of this lens
> reversal macro stuff is new to me and I'm enjoying experimenting with as
> much of it as I can.

Have you tried directly reverse mounting your 105MM directly to the
camera? I was rather happy with the results of doing that with my
55MM. I just checked UPS.com and my D70S is out for delivery as I
write - so I will take some digi shots later today that way.

Thanks,

Ben
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 11:00:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> Have you tried directly reverse mounting your 105MM directly to the
> camera?

The preceeding sentence was brought to you by the Department of
Rendundancy Department.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 12:38:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message...

> Anway, thanks for your input - I think I will be picking up the 105MM
> lens. Oh, and I know it's probably been covered, but why reverse mount
> a macro to a xx-xxx lens?

You'll really enjoy the 105mm. There really wasn't any specific reason for
me putting a 50mm f/1.4 in front of the 105mm other than both of them had
the same diameter filter threads. I tried a couple other lenses in front
and I find the 50mm is the best choice for my use. All of this lens
reversal macro stuff is new to me and I'm enjoying experimenting with as
much of it as I can.



Rita
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 4:47:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 Jun 2005 17:10:30 -0700, kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
>Should I be concerned with greater vibration in a macro lens at longer
>focal lengths? Just shooting about 100 or so shots to get started with
>a 55MM up close lens, I found it EXTREMELY difficult to maintain focus.
> I ask because I am considering purchasing the 105MM Nikon
>macro/micro/up-close lens.
>
>Ben

Yes, just as you should be concerned with greater vibration with a
non-macro at longer focal lengths (or rather, vibration being the
same, it affects longer focal lengths to a higher extent, both in
macro and non-macro).
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 4:47:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 Jun 2005 08:18:33 -0700, kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

>the Nikon AF macro/micro lenses be used in manual focus as well?? I am
>thinking about going with a 105MM lens new. I noticed a tiny knick on
>the front glass of the used one I have, as well.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ben

A small scratch will not affect your pictures in the least. I would
rather save a substantial amount of money by buying a used lens with a
small scratch than a new one in prime condition. The mechanical
condition of the focus, diaphragm etc. is much more important.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:00:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You're right about the minimum distance, it's about a foot and a half
without the diopter in place. These all were done with that lens
except the one titled 'Bleeding Hearts' and none have any post
processing done to them. They were all shot on an auto setting with no
attempt to improve DOF or use of flash. With a little attention paid
to better lighting and depth of field, I really can't imagine a
thousand dollar lens doing a whole lot better. It does a credible job
as a portrait lens too and is just right for the bugs and flowers I
like to shoot:

http://www.pbase.com/kittochtinny/kittscenes



Richard H. wrote:
> Kitt wrote:
>
> > I have the Phoenix 100mm AF version of the Vivitar/Phoenix/Etc. family
> > of this lens and I can't say enough good about it's image quality. I
> > think it's the third or fourth one down in Richard's list.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBa...
> That sounds like a good deal indeed.
>
> According to B&H, the min focal distance is ~17 inches - is this
> correct? (They have it wrong for my lens, which will focus down to
> ~1.5-2.0" in macro mode.)
>
> How would you compare the image size at 17" with the lens cap shots
> taken below at 105mm (2.5" distance)?
> http://www.pbase.com/hornbaker/macro_tests
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 10:37:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kitt wrote:
> You're right about the minimum distance, it's about a foot and a half
> without the diopter in place. These all were done with that lens
> except the one titled 'Bleeding Hearts' and none have any post
> processing done to them. They were all shot on an auto setting with no
> attempt to improve DOF or use of flash. With a little attention paid
> to better lighting and depth of field, I really can't imagine a
> thousand dollar lens doing a whole lot better. It does a credible job
> as a portrait lens too and is just right for the bugs and flowers I
> like to shoot:

They look nice, but how about re-sizing them for the web? I would like
to see the whole picture at once...

Ben
June 16, 2005 3:57:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>> That's why they make lots of longer
>> tele macro lenses 'cause it doesn't cost you any DOF and give you more
>> lens to subject distance for lighting. The whole "shorter lenses have
>> more DOF" hype/lie/BS falls apart when you are doing macro work.
>
> Should I be concerned with greater vibration in a macro lens at longer
> focal lengths?

At the same magnification, it makes no difference. The only reason they use
the 1/focal length rule for shutter speeds is this is assuming you are
shooting the object/scene from the same position.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 10:58:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Below the picture after you click on the thumbnail, there is a line
that says something like "other sizes". Click on medium or large,
whichever fits your monitor best. In any case, you should be able to
see it all at the medium size.

Kitt



kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Kitt wrote:
> > You're right about the minimum distance, it's about a foot and a half
> > without the diopter in place. These all were done with that lens
> > except the one titled 'Bleeding Hearts' and none have any post
> > processing done to them. They were all shot on an auto setting with no
> > attempt to improve DOF or use of flash. With a little attention paid
> > to better lighting and depth of field, I really can't imagine a
> > thousand dollar lens doing a whole lot better. It does a credible job
> > as a portrait lens too and is just right for the bugs and flowers I
> > like to shoot:
>
> They look nice, but how about re-sizing them for the web? I would like
> to see the whole picture at once...
>
> Ben
!