macro suggestions

[jl1975]

Ok, so I took a few shots with the new lens. AWESOME! I know I need to practice with this but so far I'm impressed.

 

[jcdeboever]

Good choice. There are slider rails that mount on a tripod that make life a lot easier for shooting macro. I would not know which one to recommend but I have seen them from $30.00 to $600. I think they are called focus rail.

 

[KenC]

Good choice. There are slider rails that mount on a tripod that make life a lot easier for shooting macro. I would not know which one to recommend but I have seen them from $30.00 to $600. I think they are called focus rail.

Yes, focusing rails. I'm looking at those myself and there's quite a variety available. I'm trying to untangle the reviews, specs, etc.

 

[wezza13]

Yes, focusing rails. I'm looking at those myself and there's quite a variety available. I'm trying to untangle the reviews, specs, etc.

Please let us know when you do!

 

[cgw]

The Velbon Super Mag is reasonably solid and decent value. Had a few el cheapos with a frustrating amount of play in the gear track that filled up the swear jar quick.

 

[cgw]

The 40/2.8 Micro Nikkor punches way above its weight for a <300 buck lens. Seems to be the descendant of the venerable 55/3.5 and an excellent choice for anyone interested in close-up photography who might be initially hesitant to spend more. Hear more tiresome recitations about its working distance limitations than actual experience--the old echo chamber at work again. Made for 24mp DX. Slightly long normal+close-up for a bit more than than a 35/1.8g. A genuine sleeper.

 

[lolland]

I don't do a lot of macro ( read - hardly any), so I got the nikkor 85 f3.5 as a compromise. I'm more than happy with it.

Yeap good lens but its a DX lens so if anyone plans on moving to FX then this will not be a good investment.

Isn't a FX lens way more expensive than a DX ?
I have the Nikkor 105 2.8 on my d7100.
I sadly never use it though. Maybe more in a few months when summer comes and sun and more light.
You need a lot of light as aperture is more 8 and higher when shooting that lens.

Dxomark says the 105 isn't that sharp on a crop body, don't know what to make of that though.

 

[goodguy]

I don't do a lot of macro ( read - hardly any), so I got the nikkor 85 f3.5 as a compromise. I'm more than happy with it.

Yeap good lens but its a DX lens so if anyone plans on moving to FX then this will not be a good investment.

Isn't a FX lens way more expensive than a DX ?
I have the Nikkor 105 2.8 on my d7100.
I sadly never use it though. Maybe more in a few months when summer comes and sun and more light.
You need a lot of light as aperture is more 8 and higher when shooting that lens.

Dxomark says the 105 isn't that sharp on a crop body, don't know what to make of that though.

FX lenses are bigger and heavier then their DX sisters and I believe are indeed more expensive but it all comes down to what you plan to do in the future, if you plan on moving to FX in the future then its a good idea just to get FX glass, will save you a whole lot of headache when you will start selling all you DX glass.
Nikon 105mm 2.8 will work just fine on both DX and FX but I will agree if you are not seeing yourself going FX ever the 85mm DX Macro lens is cheaper and a good buy.
Enjoy your new lens

 

[Overread]

The 40/2.8 Micro Nikkor punches way above its weight for a <300 buck lens. Seems to be the descendant of the venerable 55/3.5 and an excellent choice for anyone interested in close-up photography who might be initially hesitant to spend more. Hear more tiresome recitations about its working distance limitations than actual experience--the old echo chamber at work again.

The echo is however true.
I've got a Tokina 35mm macro and whilst 5mm is a big difference in angle of view at short focal lengths, the working distance differences are not vast and are comparable. The 35mm is a very fine, very affordable lens that I do like using; but never at 1:1 magnification. In practical terms its close up; if you go closer and all the way to its limit you're so close that you will be shadowing your subject; furthermore the very short working distance means that you've got very little space to get lighting like flashes positioned.

My advice (and I accept that this is an older thread and that the OP might well have made his choice) is that 60mm should be the shortest focal length for macro work at 1:1 for practical intents and purposes and that ideally you want 90mm or longer if you're a beginner.



Working distance = distance from the front of the lens to the subject
Minimum focusing distance = distance from the sensor/film to the subject

Note Working distance tends to only appear in macro because you're close enough that the distance from the lens to the subject is significantly different to the minimum focusing distance; whilst for most other situations the difference between the two is negligible.

 

[cgw]

The 40/2.8 Micro Nikkor punches way above its weight for a <300 buck lens. Seems to be the descendant of the venerable 55/3.5 and an excellent choice for anyone interested in close-up photography who might be initially hesitant to spend more. Hear more tiresome recitations about its working distance limitations than actual experience--the old echo chamber at work again.

The echo is however true.
I've got a Tokina 35mm macro and whilst 5mm is a big difference in angle of view at short focal lengths, the working distance differences are not vast and are comparable. The 35mm is a very fine, very affordable lens that I do like using; but never at 1:1 magnification. In practical terms its close up; if you go closer and all the way to its limit you're so close that you will be shadowing your subject; furthermore the very short working distance means that you've got very little space to get lighting like flashes positioned.

My advice (and I accept that this is an older thread and that the OP might well have made his choice) is that 60mm should be the shortest focal length for macro work at 1:1 for practical intents and purposes and that ideally you want 90mm or longer if you're a beginner.



Working distance = distance from the front of the lens to the subject
Minimum focusing distance = distance from the sensor/film to the subject

Note Working distance tends to only appear in macro because you're close enough that the distance from the lens to the subject is significantly different to the minimum focusing distance; whilst for most other situations the difference between the two is negligible.

Why belabor the obvious? That was my point. It's a nice DX optic for anyone who doesn't want to sink the bucks into a 60-105mm lens and who wants to experiment with macro. BTW, have you shot with this lens?

 

[Overread]

As I said my experiences are with the Tokina 35mm macro to which I was making the deduction that 1:1 working distances would be mostly comparable between the two.

However I was spurred to actually go find the numbers (which is rather trickier than one would expect!) and I came across this page Macro lens calculations

http://www.jeffree.co.uk/pages/macro-lens-table-a.jpg

Which lists out a series of comparable results for Nikon lenses at various magnifications. Looking at the 1:1 reproduction table we can see that the Nikon 40mm macro is rather exotic and actually gets a longer working distance than the Nikon 60mm macro! The 40mm appears to have a 52mm working distance at 1:1 which is honestly very impressive and closer to working distances from 60mm lenses.

The 35mm in comparison is only a 15mm working distance.

Like I said that 40mm is actually very impressive for what it does in that its sitting right up there with the 60mm and multiple other 50mm lenses rather than lower down. That would certainly make it an affordable practical option for 1:1 work - a challenge to be sure, but workable.



Although my personal favoured short macro lens will still be the Sigma 70mm macro for 1:1 work.

 

[fmw]

I use the 60mm AF micro Nikkor f2.8. On a DX camera it is slightly long and sharp as a tack. The nice thing about using a 35mm camera lens on DX is that you only get the sweet spot of the lens in your composition. It is the edges of any lens that normally have the compromises. I think 105mm is probably a little long for DX format unless you really need a lot of space between lens and subject. The 105 is a good choice for 35mm.

 

[cgw]

I use the 60mm AF micro Nikkor f2.8. On a DX camera it is slightly long and sharp as a tack. The nice thing about using a 35mm camera lens on DX is that you only get the sweet spot of the lens in your composition. It is the edges of any lens that normally have the compromises. I think 105mm is probably a little long for DX format unless you really need a lot of space between lens and subject. The 105 is a good choice for 35mm.

For negative scanning, the old 105/4 barely works on my copy stand at absolute max extension on DX with the centre post shimmed up about 10mm. Was shopping for a used 60/2.8AFD but decided to take a chance on the 40/2.8g. No regrets. Seems perfect for 35mm/120 DX scanning.Great little lens for the $$$.