macro lenses

[Zoesmama03]

Anybody here have this lens? I'm loving it after seeing some shots in a book on macro. I want to get it but may go Sigma over Nikon because of price. EEK!

I'd love to see some macro and some portraits(I hear it takes those pretty nice too) if anyone that has it has the time to share.

 

[YEKCIM]

I don't have one, but read good things all the time about the Tamron 90mm macro. It runs $450 from B&H, at present.

 

[Chikabowa]

I know some people who love the 105 macro, but personally I thought it focused slow. It annoyed me. I do love my 60mm macro. There isn't as much compression in the bokeh, but it's still a beautiful lens.

 

[kaffinito]

I have the 105 Nikkor, and love it. It is fairly limited in usage for me right now, and it is a little slow to focus. However the shots I can get with the lens are amazing. I'm looking forward to spring and summer so I can use it for more outdoor work.

I previously posted these shortly after I got the lens.

And that's all I can find right now. Hope this helps.

BTW if you primarily want to use the macro features , you can get close to the same results with a 50mm lens and some magnifying filters. Digital concepts makes a nice set of stackable close -up lenses and they're a lot cheaper than buying the 105.

 

[Gdad]

I had both the 105mm Nikon Micro AF and AS-F VR and found them both to be really irritating with slow focus and constant hunting- also tried the Sigma 150mm with similar results. I am now back to a Nikon 105mm and finally found one that never focus hunts- the AI-S version. (Since it is a manual focus lens of course... )

Here are a few with the 'new' one- by far my favorite.

 

[Zoesmama03]

Oh wow. Thanks for the examples. I want it for multi purposes, marcro and portraits. I was considering an 85mm next but think I'd like to have more of a real macro.

I do have a 50mm that I shoot primarily with. How far do connectors get ya I wonder?? 50mm just is not getting close to where I want for macro. I'll remember to look into these expander things because I know the 85mm is said to be an awesome portraits lens. And that is what I do more but simply because I can't get results I want with my kit or 50mm on nature shots like that.

 

[kaffinito]

Oh wow. Thanks for the examples. I want it for multi purposes, marcro and portraits. I was considering an 85mm next but think I'd like to have more of a real macro.

I do have a 50mm that I shoot primarily with. How far do connectors get ya I wonder?? 50mm just is not getting close to where I want for macro. I'll remember to look into these expander things because I know the 85mm is said to be an awesome portraits lens. And that is what I do more but simply because I can't get results I want with my kit or 50mm on nature shots like that.

I haven't used an extender, but I do use the close up filters. They get you as close as the 105 can. These are the close up filters I've been using: http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Concepts-Close-Up-Macro-Filter/dp/B001ANXRQA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1235046570&sr=1-4

Again these are early photos with the 50mm and the close up lenses.

In the last photo you can see the difference in the quality between the two lenses. The 50mm with a 4x magnifying filter will get you close, but the light looks completely different. This was shot in the same area as my first Ice shot, about five minutes later.

I switched lenses back and forth to make some comparison shots, but have not spent as much time with the 50mm and magnifying filters as I have with the 105. I will be this spring and summer though because the 105 is a very heavy monster lens.

I should also add that the 105 I have is the Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens. The 105mm does have some drawbacks, but the difference in the amount and quality of the light and the DOF is pretty amazing. For me it was worth the extra $$$.

 

[Groucho]

If you're OK with manual focus, look for a Kiron/Vivitar Series One/Lester A Dine 105mm macro... they are generally regarded as the best 105mm macros out there, pretty consistently rated higher than the Nikkor (or most other OEMs, I think.) I don't know what they go for in the Nikon world, but over in my system, they currently go for anything from $325-450 depending on the way the wind is blowing that day. (I was lucky and got mine for about $200.)

It's not perfect, there is a little purple fringing at F2.8, but the sharpness is just amazing, and the color and bokeh are terrific also. Build quality is also great, it's a solid heavy all-metal lens. It takes a lot of twists to go from infinity to 1:1 focusing though, which is a pain if going between but makes fine focusing much easier (pretty important for a macro.)

 

[Chikabowa]

If you are looking at getting the 85mm, I would TOTALLY save the money and go with the 60mm macro. I really enjoy using it as a portrait lens (don't get me wrong, the 85mm - which I also have - is beautiful, but I love the 60mm and it serves dual purpose). The added benefit of the 60mm is that it's cheap - it's only like $400/$500 bucks!! You'll only be able to get the 85mm f1.8 for that price, and you won't be able to get into the 105mm at that price either.

This was taken with a 60mm macro. No cropping.

 

[dmccarty]

I have the Nikon 105mm/F2.8 and its a great lens for taking macro photos. It is slow to focus which is not much of a problem with the close up photos unless you are trying to get a shot of butterfly.

For me, its a nice fit between my 50mmF1.4 and 180mmf2.8.

PK, prior to kids, I used to use the 105mm frequently. I have boxes of Kodachrome macro photos that are very nice. AK, after kids, the 105mm is not used as much, more the 50mm and 35-70mm.

The 105mm, remote release and a good tripod opens up quite a bit of photo opportunities.

Later,
Dan

 

[Zoesmama03]

My problem is I do photograph my daughter more and think something that can do both would be nice. I'm kinda comparing 85mm f/1.8 and the 105mm macro because I know I can't afford both. I should have around $1000 to go toward camera stuff but I know I'm getting a Spyder monitor calibrator and possibly Lightroom but would pass on it for a new lens for sure.

I have my priorities set for getting back into my own place since my moved back to central Florida, so need deposits etc. Then I'm sooooo getting WDW annual passes for dd and I.

 

[jann1033]

finally found these( see the nikon potd thread post 49 for more info) i'm posting the links to the phtos since these came from photojojo and i had saved them but don't have the link to the article they came inhttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3307770043_ab369f0eec_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3307770043_ab369f0eec.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3308601216_15887a2da5_m.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3308601216_15887a2da5.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3307769875_76ce3605c7.jpg
ok it's late and i keep deleting the wrong non working links so just click the 4 for 4 photos.

 

[jann1033]

i just read a really good review (magazine,might be one online somewhere) for a tokina macro...think it was 100mm, f2.8. about $400. it's it's anything like my fisheye it will hold up under nuclear explosions

 

[RBennett]

My problem is I do photograph my daughter more and think something that can do both would be nice. I'm kinda comparing 85mm f/1.8 and the 105mm macro because I know I can't afford both. I should have around $1000 to go toward camera stuff but I know I'm getting a Spyder monitor calibrator and possibly Lightroom but would pass on it for a new lens for sure.

I have my priorities set for getting back into my own place since my moved back to central Florida, so need deposits etc. Then I'm sooooo getting WDW annual passes for dd and I.

Sounds like you have your priorities in PERFECT order!! 1)Move to Florida and 2) Get the AP @ WDW!!! Now if only I could do that!!!!

 

[jann1033]

my 100mm macro lens broke...it won't autofocus at all( actually did as soon as i turned it on then quit ) but i can use manual to focus for macro shots. if i try to focus manually for a normal 100mm shoot it won't focus, just a blur. not really a big deal it broke, i've used it a few yrs, it was cheap and i didn't buy it for longevity

BUT does anyone know anything about macro lenses and how they actually work. ie why you can use them for normal distance shot and macro shot?

one thing i have always hated about this lens even when the focus was working is the focus distance is 18" and it won't focus( macro) at all if you are not exactly 18 " away( manual or auto). it has a filter for 1:1 and that focuses at 12" and only 12" which stinks cause a lot of time if there is a wall or something i have to move the tripod back and forth( even with a macro head) or even lean it to get it the exact spot it will focus.(I mean for manual where it is sharp, it is not even a recognizable subject if you are to close or to far by a fraction no matter how much you try to focus. in auto it just kept hunting and hunting and hunting till you moved the camera to the "correct" distance)

this is the only real macro i have ever had. are they all that touchy ie that you have to be exactly the focus distance,no closer no farther? i have read some saying they like the 100 mm length better since they can be farther away etc which made me wonder if this is a freak the way this lens focuses ... mainly want to know so i can buy accordingly next one i buy..
thanks for any imput.

if they are all like that i would get one with a longer focus distance. i've used my other "fake"(ie zoom with 1:4 macro) macro lenses with no problem since you can be farther away

 

[MarkBarbieri]

A properly functioning macro lens should be able to focus from very close (typically close enough to get 1:1 magnification) all the way to infinity.

Long focal length macro lenses reach 1:1 magnification from further away. So if you have three (50mm, 100mm, and 180mm) macro lenses, and they all have the same final magnification, your working distance will be greater with the longer focal lengths. That's great for some stuff and bad for others.

It is normal for all lenses, even macro lenses, to have a minimum focus distance inside of which they cannot focus. They should not have a maximum focus distance. The exception to that is if you are using a closeup filter or extension tubes on a lens. In those cases, you gain the ability to focus on things that are closer, but you lose the ability to focus on things that are farther away.

To focus at different ranges, a lens needs to shift some of it's elements. There is a limit to how far they will move. With a macro lens, they are designed to work over an unusually long range, so they can focus from very close to infinity.

 

[jann1033]

thanks, so guess there was a reason i was ripping my hair out for 2 yrs trying to get this lens to work. oh well i'll know better next time
that could explain why the 1;1 filter was a pain but guessing something was up with the focus since it was limited without the filter as well.( 1:2)

i can see the longer length would be good for skittish things ie bugs (or like my 70-200 the 1:4 macro is actually nice since the focus length is 4 ft, i can take macro shots standing up) but what would the cons be.

 

[VVFF]

thanks, so guess there was a reason i was ripping my hair out for 2 yrs trying to get this lens to work. oh well i'll know better next time
that could explain why the 1;1 filter was a pain but guessing something was up with the focus since it was limited without the filter as well.( 1:2)

i can see the longer length would be good for skittish things ie bugs (or like my 70-200 the 1:4 macro is actually nice since the focus length is 4 ft, i can take macro shots standing up) but what would the cons be.

Some reasons that comes to mind:

In low light there is more chance of camera shake, its more difficult to frame the shot, it becomes less practical as a standard lens(for everyday shooting).

 

[jann1033]

i always use a tripod for macro anyway so the first isn't really all that negative to me. i liked the 100mm length a lot for standard shots but i have a tendency to fill the frame with my subject anyway, i figure cause i can't see all that well, it's a novelty to see details
but thanks

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Most nature macro shooters seem to prefer the 180mm or 100mm for the extra working distance. People that do small product shoots indoors like the 50mm because they want a shorter working distance.