Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need advice about macro lenses

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:18:29 PM

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

I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.

I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a shot
of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
105 will let me step back a little.

I'm sure there advantages that the 60mm has over the 105mm but I just
don't know them; not to mention there are avatages that the 105 has
over the 60 that I just don't know about.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

More about : advice macro lenses

Anonymous
August 11, 2005 6:33:24 PM

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

Remember that the change of mm also changes the Field of View, FOV.
This also reduces your depth of field DOF.

These are both subjectively value quanitications. er... You're choice
dude.

If you want a wider angle shot with more background in focus, then get
the 60mm, if you want to "flatten" the picture a little, and blur out
the background, then get the 105. Also remember to check the minimum
focus distance of any macro lens, I believe all the Nikkor lenses will
be around 1", but there are some exceptions I think.

Have fun.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:09:01 PM

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

A friend of mine has the Nikon 105 f2.8 and it's a great lens. If I was
using Nikon gear, that's the one I would have.



<sempernovus@gmail.com> wrote in message
>I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
> two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
> amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
> possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.
>
> I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
> would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a shot
> of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
> natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
> blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
> 105 will let me step back a little.
>
> I'm sure there advantages that the 60mm has over the 105mm but I just
> don't know them; not to mention there are avatages that the 105 has
> over the 60 that I just don't know about.
>
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:43:38 PM

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

>I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a >105mm.

My question to you is - are both lenses 1:1 magnification? If one is
and the other isn't, get the lens with a 1:1 magnification. On a film
camera, that lens would make the image full size on the film frame.
I'm not sure if the reproductive size is the same with digital.
Lynn
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:09:41 AM

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

sempernovus@gmail.com wrote:
> I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
> two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
> amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
> possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.

To expand on a couple points mentioned already...
The term "macro" is used a bit loosely in product descriptions. You
need to look closely at a) minimum focal distance (how close can you
get), and b) the magnification ratio. The two of these combined will
help you understand how big the final image will be.

I recommend a trip to http://www.pbase.com, find the lens of interest,
and look at different shots taken with it. You'll get a good feeling
for the macro capability. Just be aware that some may be cropped
high-res shots, which will look even closer than 1:1.

(Given the option, I'd opt for the longer one, maybe even closer to
200mm if quality and budget allowed. E.g., Hummingirds are small and
hard to get close to. FWIW, I use a Nikon 1:2 macro / short zoom that's
convenient - see http://www.pbase.com/hornbaker/macro_tests)

A prior discussion...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.photography/bro...

Cheers,
Richard
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:34:57 AM

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

sempernovus@gmail.com wrote:
>I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
> two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
> amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of
> one possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.
>
> I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
> would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a
> shot of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
> natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
> blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
> 105 will let me step back a little.
>
> I'm sure there advantages that the 60mm has over the 105mm but I just
> don't know them; not to mention there are avatages that the 105 has
> over the 60 that I just don't know about.
>
> Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

For most uses the 105 will be best. The only advantage I can think of
for the 60 is it might make a dandy (but a little long) portrait lens.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
August 12, 2005 3:24:11 AM

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

sempernovus@gmail.com wrote:

> I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
> two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
> amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
> possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.
>
> I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
> would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a shot
> of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
> natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
> blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
> 105 will let me step back a little.

You figured it out, the 105 will work better for most things.



--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:50:18 AM

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

On 11 Aug 2005 13:18:29 -0700, sempernovus@gmail.com wrote:

>I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
>two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
>amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
>possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.
>
>I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
>would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a shot
>of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
>natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
>blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
>105 will let me step back a little.
>
>I'm sure there advantages that the 60mm has over the 105mm but I just
>don't know them; not to mention there are avatages that the 105 has
>over the 60 that I just don't know about.

More working distance with a 90/105/180 (like the Nikkor and the
ones below) will allow for more shots I'm sure.

Others have gotten good results with both the Nikkors and the Tamron
SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro, the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro and
the Sigma 180mm F/3.5 EX APO Macro DG HSM, but I can understand the
Nikkor preferance (funds permitting).
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 3:59:35 PM

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

kayaker wrote:
...
> My question to you is - are both lenses 1:1 magnification? If one is
> and the other isn't, get the lens with a 1:1 magnification. On a film
> camera, that lens would make the image full size on the film frame.
> I'm not sure if the reproductive size is the same with digital.
> Lynn

It will depend on the size of the sensor. If the sensor is smaller,
which is the usual, then the ratio will be even larger (it will appear even
closer) than 1:1 it is the same factor as the telephoto effect 1.6 being
common.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:48:00 PM

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

<sempernovus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123791509.333503.177570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The Tamron 90mm F2.8 is an awesome lens. One of the few that are good
for both macro and portraits. Very affordable too. :-)
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:35:37 AM

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

On 11 Aug 2005 19:43:38 -0700, "kayaker" <llutton@aol.com> wrote:

>My question to you is - are both lenses 1:1 magnification?

Yes.

> On a film
>camera, that lens would make the image full size on the film frame.
>I'm not sure if the reproductive size is the same with digital.

Yes, it is. Reproduction ratio does not depend on film or sensor size
(but FOV does - 24 x 36 mm on a film SLR, 18 x 24 mm on Nikon DSLR,
both at 1:1)
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 1:35:38 AM

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

Deedee Tee wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 19:43:38 -0700, "kayaker" <llutton@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>My question to you is - are both lenses 1:1 magnification?
>
> Yes.
>
>> On a film
>>camera, that lens would make the image full size on the film frame.
>>I'm not sure if the reproductive size is the same with digital.
>
> Yes, it is. Reproduction ratio does not depend on film or sensor size
> (but FOV does - 24 x 36 mm on a film SLR, 18 x 24 mm on Nikon DSLR,
> both at 1:1)

That is true, so I guess the way I worded my response is actually wrong.

I should have indicated that I was indicating effective or apparent
reproduction ratio as compared to full frame 35mm.

Thanks for your comments. I should have indicated the difference in my
original message.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 2:00:48 AM

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

On 11 Aug 2005 13:18:29 -0700, sempernovus@gmail.com wrote:

>I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
>two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
>amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
>possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.
>
>I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
>would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a shot
>of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
>natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
>blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
>105 will let me step back a little.
>
>I'm sure there advantages that the 60mm has over the 105mm but I just
>don't know them; not to mention there are avatages that the 105 has
>over the 60 that I just don't know about.
>
>Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

You pretty much summed it up yourself. I have the 60 mm Micro Nikkor
and the 180 mm Sigma Apo Macro. I tried the 105 mm, but it is not that
different from these two lenses, so I don't need a third macro lens
(over 95% of my work is studio macro and close-up). If I could not
have a 180 or 200 macro, a 105, 120 or 150 would be useful, and
probably I would choose a 90 to 105 as the only macro lens.

I chose the 60 mm over the 105 because I do a lot of close-up at less
than 1:1 (i.e., subjects bigger than 18 x 24 mm), and the 60 mm lets
me shoot 50 cm wide subjects on a repro stand without putting the
subject on the floor and/or me going up on a ladder. The 180 mm is
fine for anything smaller than about 10 cm, and gives less perspective
distortion than the 60 mm. Because of the internal focusing, the focal
length of the 180 is a lot less than 180 mm at 1:1 (closer to 90-120
mm, I think). Therefore, the FL difference between these two lenses in
macro is much less than the nominal 3x. The 180 mm also makes an
excellent lens for field macro of living animals, because the front
lens-to-subject is really big and there is a lesser chance of scaring
the subject away. You can also use a FL multiplier to get even more
working distance.

DOF in macro does not depend on focal length, only on diaphragm
opening. Focal length does make a significant difference on DOF
starting from about 1:10 reproduction ratio, and affects DOF maximally
at long range and infinite.

Read up on the effects of diaphragm opening on diffraction and loss of
detail if you are not already familiar with this subject - a lot of
DOF is not necessarily the most important thing in macro.
August 13, 2005 4:25:41 AM

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

Rolf Egil Sølvik wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2005 13:18:29 -0700, sempernovus@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>I want to purchase a macro lens and I've narrowed my selection down to
>>two lenses, both Nikon. One is a 60mm and the other a 105mm. I'm an
>>amateur and have no experience with macro lenses but I can think of one
>>possible advantage that the 105mm has over the 60mm.
>>
>>I don't have to be close to the subject to get a macro shot. This
>>would be perfect for insects or anything else that I want to get a shot
>>of that may be skitish. And if I'm using a 60mm and I want to use
>>natural light instead of flash and the only angle I can get ends up
>>blocking the light or casting a shadow on the subject so NO SHOT. The
>>105 will let me step back a little.
>>
>>I'm sure there advantages that the 60mm has over the 105mm but I just
>>don't know them; not to mention there are avatages that the 105 has
>>over the 60 that I just don't know about.
>
>
> More working distance with a 90/105/180 (like the Nikkor and the
> ones below) will allow for more shots I'm sure.
>
> Others have gotten good results with both the Nikkors and the Tamron
> SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro, the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro and
> the Sigma 180mm F/3.5 EX APO Macro DG HSM, but I can understand the
> Nikkor preferance (funds permitting).


Hmm, I'm not so sure about the Nikkor preference...
The Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 are a similar price to the Nikkor 60, much
less than the Nikkor 105. Both actually outperform the Nikkor 105
optically according to photodo.com MTF tests. The AF performance of the
Nikkor might be better, but IMO this isn't such an issue as none have
USM/AF-S focusing, which might (and only just might) be something to
make AF useful for macro work anyway. If funds were not unlimited, then
I would take either instead of the 60mm, or either plus a few hundred
dollars worth of accessories instead of the 105 Nikkor.
Anonymous
August 13, 2005 4:25:42 AM

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

"frederick" wrote...

> Hmm, I'm not so sure about the Nikkor preference...
> The Tamron 90 and Sigma 105 are a similar price to the Nikkor 60, much
> less than the Nikkor 105. Both actually outperform the Nikkor 105
> optically according to photodo.com MTF tests. The AF performance of the
> Nikkor might be better, but IMO this isn't such an issue as none have
> USM/AF-S focusing, which might (and only just might) be something to
> make AF useful for macro work anyway. If funds were not unlimited, then
> I would take either instead of the 60mm, or either plus a few hundred
> dollars worth of accessories instead of the 105 Nikkor.

I haven't tried the Tamron or Sigma, but I can say that the 105mm Nikkor I
have is outstanding optically. Plus, the added lens to subject distance
over the 60mm is ideal for using creative lighting techniques.




Rita
!