gear questions.

[Netskimmer]

Hi all,

I thought about posting this in the equipment forum but I thought I would get more relevant responses in here. I absolutly love macro photography and have been doing it off and on since I got into photography but I haven't gotten any macro specific gear yet. I am currently using ETs and a flash mounted on my hotshoe. I'm looking for a long macro lens and would like suggestions on lighting equipment. I like photographing inanimate objects, nature and insects in macro. I posted a similar thread a while back but the Sigma 180mm 2.8 macro was still quite new. I'm hoping someone with some field experience with it can tell me how it performs. I am also looking at Sigmas 150mm, Nikons 200mm f/4, and nikkons 105mm (I think this one might be a bit short for insect macro) but would welcome any other lens suggestion you may have.

Thanks in advance.

 

[cowleystjames]

I have the Sigma 150mm F2.8 and its a beauty.
I can keep a reasonable distance between the lens and subject, so I don't spook insects and the sharpness even wide open is amazing.
I had the Nikon 105 before this and didn't keep it long, it wasn't as sharp wide open.

 

[Overread18 6]

They are all great lenses - macro lenses in general are very good lenses optically speaking. Even when they get upgraded versions there is often only marginal improvement in the optical quality because they start from such a strong point.

The Sigma 150mm f2.8 and 180mm f2.8 are both now off the market and have been replaced with a 150mm f2.8 OS and a 180mm f2.8 OS (OS being sigma talk for VR). This brings them very much up in line with the Nikon 105mm VR and its image stablizing feature; which whilst having less effect at macro distances is still a good boon to have.

Honestly budget and focal length are likely be bigger parts of your choice; personally I'd say that the 150mm or 180mm would be ideal choices for what you've outlined in either their former version or their new OS edition.

 

[Netskimmer]

Thanks for the responses guys. I'm cunfused about something, the Nikkor 200mm Micro only has a working distance of 10.2" while the Sigma 180 and 150 have working distances of 18.2" and 15" respectively? Is this due to newer technology or am I getting my numbers mixed up?

Edit-

No budget restrictions, the only question is whether the extra focal length is worth the $$$

 

[480sparky42 41]

My 105 2.8D is so-so wide open, but I rarely shoot wide open It's fine at 4.0, and really steps up to the plate at 5.6 and 8. At 11 and 16, it's swinging for the left-field fence.

Keep in mind that the longer the focal length, what you gain in working distance is offset with shallower DOF.

 

[Netskimmer]

I'm probably going with either the 150 or the 180 Sigma OS. I'll need to do more reaserch on their DoF and various f-stops and decide which one I prefer.

What about lighting? I have an SB-910 and a large boom/light stand but I think the stand might be kind of cumbersome to carry around for nature and insects. Maybe a Manfrotto Nano stand or a flash bracket for the camera? I thought about a ring flash but I have heard that they flatten the light and can reduce textures.

 

[David444]

My 105 2.8D is so-so wide open, but I rarely shoot wide open It's fine at 4.0, and really steps up to the plate at 5.6 and 8. At 11 and 16, it's swinging for the left-field fence.

Keep in mind that the longer the focal length, what you gain in working distance is offset with shallower DOF.

Focal length does not have any effect on the DOF (with the same field of view) such as in a 1:1 shot. A 200mm macro lens will give twice the working distance than a 100mm macro lens, with both having the same amount of DOF.

 

[Overread18 6]

Remember working distance is from the front of the lens to the subject whilst minimum focusing distance is from the sensor/film inside the camera itself. As such even lenses with the same focal length can have some variation in the working distance depending upon their construction and optical formula - also upon if they focus internally (don't change in length physically a they focus) or externally (changes length as it focuses).


As for depth of field, depth of field remains the same no matter the focal length. What will change though is background blurring, you tend to have to compare extremes to see it well (for example a 35mm to a 150 or 200mm macro lens), but a longer focal length will blur the background more so than a shorter focal length. With shorter focal length macros this can make them appear to have more depth of field since the break from focus to out of focus is softer and less distinct.
I know a few who will use a 1.4 and even a 2*teleconverter on a macro lens not for increased working distance or magnification, but so that the focal length gains a boost and thus they can increase that blurring element.


Lighting wise a good regular speedlite flash with a lumiquest softbox (or similar sized softbox) will work well. The 150mm I've used well with the flash in the hotshoe and the softbox fitted. Ideally you want the flash forward though and for that I've used the tripod collar screw thread mount for the tripod and attached a ball and socket based RAM-Mount setup which lets me position the flash where I want it whilst remaining rock steady (RAM Mount items are made to hold things like satnavs still on bikes so for a flash and camera its more than enough without being too costly).

2 RAM 1" Ball with 1/4"-20 Male Threaded Post for Cameras
2 RAM Double Socket Arm for 1" Ball Bases. Overall Length: 3.69"
1 RAM Double 1" Ball Adapter

Gives you a flexible and strong arm. If its not quite long enough its certainly strong enough to let you add another double ball and arm to the setup to extend the reach. The other neat thing is that the rubber balls have some stickyness to them so even when you release the pressure on the arm you still have to apply a little force to the setup to get it to move (so you're flash won't suddenly slump).

 

[Netskimmer]

Thanks Overread, that RAM stuff looks like it would be pretty versatile.

 

[Derrel]

Focal length does not have any effect on the DOF (with the same field of view) such as in a 1:1 shot. A 200mm macro lens will give twice the working distance than a 100mm macro lens, with both having the same amount of DOF.

That statement from David444 might seem odd, but it's true. There's no need to search for DOF numbers and lens specifications. The 150,180,and 200 macro lenses are all nifty. I have not seen many images from the NEW Sigma 150 or 180 OS lenses, but the "old" 150mm macro Sigma produced some beautiful bokeh when used as a portrait and landscape/scenic telephoto.