Few questions regarding macro lenses

D90_Duck · May 27, 2011

Hi all,

I'm looking to buy a macro lens in a few months time when I get the money together. I have been doing some research on the matter and I found two possible candidates, the Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro or the Micro Nikkor AF-S DX 85mm f/3.5 G ED VR.

I have a few questions regarding both lenses that I hope you guys can help me with.

- The Tokina isn't an IF (Internal Focus) lens so this one will extend during focus and I was wondering whether this could be a disadvantage in certain conditions, and if so, what would/could those be?

- If I also want to use the macro lens for portraiture won't the Nikkor 85mm suit me better because of the VR and the shorter focal length (because of the APS-C censor)? But would the max. aperture of f/3.5 of the Nikkor 85mm be a dealbreaker when it comes to portrait photography?

- And a final question about the minimum working distance.
Tokina 100mm
min. focus distance 0.30m (max. magnification ratio 1:1, ~11cm min. working distance)
Nikkor 85mm
min. focus distance 0.286m (max. magnification ratio 1:1) Source: photozone.de

Both lenses have pretty much the same minimum working distance but the Tokina also shows a different minimum working distance of 11 centimeter and I don't understand why it can be both 30 cm and 11 cm.

I'm hoping some of you here can shed some light on these matters for me.

Thanks in advance,

John

Markw · May 27, 2011

D90_Duck said:
Hi all,

I'm looking to buy a macro lens in a few months time when I get the money together. I have been doing some research on the matter and I found two possible candidates, the Tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro D macro or the Micro Nikkor AF-S DX 85mm f/3.5 G ED VR.

I have a few questions regarding both lenses that I hope you guys can help me with.

- The Tokina isn't an IF (Internal Focus) lens so this one will extend during focus and I was wondering whether this could be a disadvantage in certain conditions, and if so, what would/could those be?
Absolutely. I honestly don't know how much that lens does extend, but if it does, small critters won't exactly like something reflective and relatively enormous moving in and out infront of them. I had the Sigma 105/2.8 and this turned into a HUGE problem (along with the AF noise.)

- If I also want to use the macro lens for portraiture won't the Nikkor 85mm suit me better because of the VR and the shorter focal length (because of the APS-C censor)? But would the max. aperture of f/3.5 of the Nikkor 85mm be a dealbreaker when it comes to portrait photography?
Personally, I would rather have the extra focal length of the 100mm for portrait photography. I used to use my 105/2.8 for it alot, now I use my 80-200/2.8 or 180/3.5 for portraits. With longer focal lengths, you get alot more play with DOF. With the 100mm, you can choose the super creamy background of the lens at F/2.8 or the almost focused background of F/16 and anything inbetween. The shorter focal lenght and F/3.5 on the 85/3.5 gives you alot less play. I highly doubt it should be the dealbreaker, but it's definately something to consider.

- And a final question about the minimum working distance.
Tokina 100mm
min. focus distance 0.30m (max. magnification ratio 1:1, ~11cm min. working distance)
Nikkor 85mm
min. focus distance 0.286m (max. magnification ratio 1:1) Source: photozone.de

Both lenses have pretty much the same minimum working distance but the Tokina also shows a different minimum working distance of 11 centimeter and I don't understand why it can be both 30 cm and 11 cm.

I'm hoping some of you here can shed some light on these matters for me.

The 30cm is from the focal plane, that is, from the sensor. The 11cm is from the front of the lens to the subject.

Thanks in advance,

John

Hope I helped!
Mark

jake337 · May 27, 2011

I have one(tokina). It extends but has never bothered me. Do you ever plan on going to a full frame camera? Or possibly film? The tokina was designed for digital and film and is also a FX(full frame) lens. don't forget about the tamron/sigma 90mm, 105mm, 150mm and 180mm macro lens. Even the sigma 400mm 5.6 would be fun. aperture of 5.6 may be limiting for portraits without off camera flash(if you want to get into macro you'll want to invest in flash units), but a 600mm 5.6 lens with close focus abilities would be fun. I would like to see some shots with the sigma 400mm 5.6 with extension tubes!

Markw · May 27, 2011

I owned an old Sigma 400mm F/5.6 APO Non-Macro for about a week. It was quite nice! The IQ was quite good, so I can imagine how good the 400/5.6 APO Macro will be. That would be interesting indeed!

Mark

D90_Duck · May 27, 2011

Thank you Mark for clearing these things up for me, I appreciate it. Judging from a photo on photozone.de I'd say the Tokina extends about 50 - 60% during focus, this might indeed be a bit much when trying to capture the little bugs. And yes I read about the AF noise of the Sigma 105 which is too bad because I did see some very crisp pictures taken with that lens on Pbase, plus the Sigma is much more within my budget range than say the Nikkor 105 VR. The price of the latter has gone up quite a bit lately and is now approx. 770 Euro's, which is way more than I'm willing to spend.

I'm gonna chew on it for a while. Thanks again for your answers.

John

D90_Duck · May 27, 2011

I'm just starting out in photography, Jake, so I'm not planning on switching to full frame anytime soon so the Nikkor 85 being a DX lens is no problem for me. Question for you, do you ever miss not having stabilization on the Tokina 100?

John

jaharris1001 · May 27, 2011

If I were you ,, I would seriously consider the Sigma 105mm macro lens,,its optics are RIGHT up there at the top,, I use one and its a fantastic lens, check some of my posts for macro work,,
yes it extends, BUT to ME this is NOT an issue what so ever, when at 1:1 you are roughly at least 10" away from your subject, a focus extension has NEVER bothered me or my subject even in the slightest,,
as far a AF noise,, I NEVER use auto focus when doing macro work,,I manually focus 100% of the time, most all macro lens' will zoom in and out when in that close, so I always manually focus,,
IMO you would be doing yourself a disservice if you dont at least consider the Sigma 105 mm macro lens,, its one FINE lens !! great working distance and its SHARP,, check my flickr page for samples

Markw · May 27, 2011

I would agree with what jaharris says. Maybe I came on too strongly about the lens. It is a spectacular lens and I have gotten amazing shots with it as well. my JPG link in my signature will show you that. But the barrel extension has been a problem with me for flies and bees sometimes. Especially the smaller, more skittish species of fly. I upgraded to the Sigma 180/3.5 and would never go back, though. The extra working distance has virtually eliminated any doubt that I will be able to approach an insect. If I scare one away now, It's because I fell while getting down or something else idiotic. The extra working distance makes it a tad harder to stabilize, but you will learn quickly. They can be found for just over $100 more than what the 105/2.8 costs new, but I think it's totally worth it. The lens is amazingly sharp, and has full time MF override. This means you can use (super fast and quiet) AF to get the lens to about where you need it, then refine it with MF, getting it right where you need it without fubling around with two or more full turns of the barrel. It saves alot of time and movement. The optics are just as good. If you can afford it, I would spring for the 150 or 180 macros from Sigma or Tamron (Tamron doesn't offer a 150mm Macro). If you have never owned a macro lens, it will require a HUGE learning curve, but it goes fast. All of the macro photos seen on that mentioned JPG link in my signature were taken with that lens.

Good luck!
Mark

Mark

jake337 · May 27, 2011

D90_Duck said:
I'm just starting out in photography, Jake, so I'm not planning on switching to full frame anytime soon so the Nikkor 85 being a DX lens is no problem for me. Question for you, do you ever miss not having stabilization on the Tokina 100?

John

No, I don't think I've been at this enough to even notice the difference between with or without. Also you can freeze any subject can be frozen with flash which is almost a "have to have" situation with macro. This is because of the light loss that will occur at 1:1, and even more with the addition of extension tubes. You will want to get even closer once you have been at 1:1 and that is the macro itch! I will say the tokina is a beautifull lens, though any lens you choose will take the pictures you want with practice. Including extension tubes/reversing lens with non-macro lens.

I'll post a link to a previous/similar thread

@mark- this is kinda deja vu

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/242233-looking-good-macro-lens.html