Basics of Macro.

[Nikon_Dude]

This is an area of photography I know very little about, but one I am interested in pursuing. The only thing I've tried so far was water drop pictures, with unsatisfactory results. I got some tips that I will try out in the near future.

Out of the lenses I currently own (in my sig), which would be best for macro shots? If I need to buy a dedicated macro lens I'm willing to do so, and would appreciate some suggestions. Like I said I don't know much about macro equipment so I don't know how much I should expect to spend on a macro lens.

Another question I have is I see macro lenses with an f2.8, but many of the pictures I see people post are shot in the neighborhood of f11 for greater DoF. What then is the purpose of having the large aperture on the lens if one is going to be shooting at a much higher f stop?

And one last thing, my Tamron 18-200mm does have a Macro label on it, but I'm not sure what exactly that means. How does that make it different from a non macro 18-200? I have the paperwork that comes with the lens but there was nothing in there about the Macro portion.

 

[tirediron]

First point is to clear up a common misunderstanding. Most so-called macro-photography is actually close-up photography. Strictly speaking, "macro" images are ones where the subject has been reproduced at a 1:1 ratio on the film/sensor (that is: a subject 10mm across in real life will be recorded as 10mm on the sensor). Lenses are those lenses which allow you to do that. Most so-call macro zooms (such as your 18-200) are not macro-lenses, but lenses which allow you to focus a little more closely than normal, and at best give you a 2:1 or 3:1 (1/2 or 1/3 real life size).
The main reason that many macro shots are taken at f8, 11 or higher is because of the ultra-thin DoF at these close focusing distances. DoF can often be as little as 1mm. The reason for (relatively) large maximum apertures is because in addition to the challenge of DoF, there is the difficulty of lighting. Since your lens is so close to the subject, it is difficult to get the necessary amount of light for a proper exposure. This is the reason for specialized (and expensive) macro flashes.

There are three inexpensive ways to get into macro/close-up photography. The first is with a set of close-up lenses; this is the cheapest, and will provide the lowest-quality images. They're simply "filters" which attach to the front of your lens with elements curved to allow closer focusing. Opical quality is usually low at best. Pros are that you keep all automated functions.

The next is the reversing ring - this is an adaptor which allows you to mount a lens backwards on the camera and focus very closely. Pros are very low cost and optical quality as good as your lens can provide. Cons are: the filter threads on your lens wasn't meant to support the weight of the lens, and you're exposing the rear element to potential damage and you have NO automatic functions.

Lastly are extension tubes which mount between the body and lens and allow closer focusing by moving the rear element away from the sensor. These range from very cheap to moderately pricey ($20 - $150). The advantage is that since there are no optical elements, there is no image degradation, but if you buy the cheaper ones, you have no automatic functions (exposure/focusing), whereas the better brands (such as Kenko) will preserve those features.

Of your lenses, I would say that your most versatile lens for general close-up work will be the 18-55.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Thanks for the input. I understand the 1:1 deal, and I figured my lens would not support that.

Of your lenses, I would say that your most versatile lens for general close-up work will be the 18-55.

Would macro shots generally be taken towards the shorter or longer end of that lens?

Say I wanted to get an actual 1:1 macro lens instead of the extension tubes. What would you recommend? I might look into the extension tubes, but the reversing ring and filters isn't something I'm interested in.

 

[tirediron]

It depends on your budget, but I would suggest the older, 'D' version of the Micro-Nikkor 60mm. It won't auto-focus on your body but close-up work is one area where manual-focus is still usually the best option. This can be picked up used for as little as $350. If you're going to be shooting things such as insects or other "skittish" prety than you might want to look at the 105mm version which will let you stand off farther from the subject. This usually runs around $450 used.

Typically with close-up work, you'll be at the longer focal lengths, but really it depends on your composition and desired result.

 

[jake337]

tokina at-x pro d 100mm f2.8 can aslo be had for around 350, along with tamron's and sigma's company's both produce macro lenses. If you like to shoot bugs i would suggest longer focal lengths(90-200mm) as you won't have to be on top of your subject and you'll have more room for lighting. Also many of the 90mm+ focal lengths work great for portraits as well.

I personally have the tokina 100mm f2.8 and like it very much.

I do see you have the d5000 and you may be limitid to Nikon AF-S lenses if you want auto focus for anything other than macro shots.

 

[Dao]

Would macro shots generally be taken towards the shorter or longer end of that lens?

Focal length of the macro lens in general affect the distance between the subject and the camera. If you are planning to take a stationary object, shorter focal length will work as well as the lens with longer focal length.

i.e. 60mm vs 150mm

The end result is pretty much the same. (as far as subject size in the photo concern) You just need to position the camera closer.


However, if I find a black widow spider and would like to take a photo of her, I would rather use the one with the longer focal length. On top of that, it is harder to light the subject when the lens (front lens element) is too close to the it.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

tokina at-x pro d 100mm f2.8 can aslo be had for around 350, along with tamron's and sigma's company's both produce macro lenses. If you like to shoot bugs i would suggest longer focal lengths(90-200mm) as you won't have to be on top of your subject and you'll have more room for lighting. Also many of the 90mm+ focal lengths work great for portraits as well.

I personally have the tokina 100mm f2.8 and like it very much.

I do see you have the d5000 and you may be limitid to Nikon AF-S lenses if you want auto focus for anything other than macro shots.

I'll look into these. How are the sigma and tamron lenses quality wise? If it doubles as a good portrait lens that's a huge plus for me. I love my 35mm f1.8 prime and I'd love to have a longer prime as well.

I'm aware of the autofocus issue and am considering upgrading my body for that very reason.

 

[LightSpeed]

The 90mm Tamron 1:1 macro has somewhat of a cult following. It is an excellent lens at a price that won't break the bank. It WILL auto focus on your present d5000. Though when shooting 1:1 macro, manual focus is preferred. There is a brand new on on the bay right now, selling for 378.00 with free shipping.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Thanks that looks like a good option for me right now.

Now I have another kinda dumb question...but bear with me. I understand the macro lens is a 1:1 magnification. Is this only when shooting something close up? How does that change the picture if say I was using said lens to shoot a portrait vs using a non macro lens at 100mm?

 

[pgriz]

The lens is 1:1 magnification at the closest focusing point. Further away, it behaves just like any other lens of a specific focal length. So it you shoot landscape with it, it will give you the same view as another lens of that focal length.

Autofocus is not an issue when you're shooting macro, since with the very narrow DOF you have, you will need to select your point of focus carefully, manually.

Regarding your other question about using a macro lens as a portrait lens - remember that it is VERY sharp. Every little mole, pore and skin crevise will be sharply rendered. There are times when sharpness is golden but in portraiture, I think discretion is a better option. I say this from experience, having used the 90mm Tamron for this purpose, and found that it shows just a little too clearly all the detail that is here. Had to use some post-processing to smoothen out the wrinkles and blemishes to an acceptable level.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Ok that makes sense.

 

[Overread]

Regarding your other question about using a macro lens as a portrait lens - remember that it is VERY sharp. Every little mole, pore and skin crevise will be sharply rendered. There are times when sharpness is golden but in portraiture, I think discretion is a better option. I say this from experience, having used the 90mm Tamron for this purpose, and found that it shows just a little too clearly all the detail that is here. Had to use some post-processing to smoothen out the wrinkles and blemishes to an acceptable level.

To be fair though top notch regular prime lenses are also just as sharp; so its not a unique "problem" to macro lenses just that people are all fussy and want to look like plastic these days :mrgreen:

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Say I did decide to get some extension tubes to try out before dropping the money on a lens, how are these here?

Amazon.com: Zeikos ZE-CVAFN Auto Focus Macro Extension Tubes for Nikon: Camera & Photo

If I am reading correctly, they retain AF abilities?

 

[Overread]

One of the negative comments reports that one of the tubes got stuck to their camera body and in the comments to that report another user reports the same. It could be a concern or it might be they used them with too much force - either way its only 2 users and people tend to complain a lot more when things go wrong so I'd be inclined to think these tubes should be ok.