Help Choosing Macro Lens

alex111683 · Dec 16, 2010

Today I got my first pair of Poison Dart Frogs thumbnail species and was trying to capture a picture of these guys and realized after trying all three lenses that is will be almost impossible to do so without a macro lens.

I have a Nikon D40x with the following lenses
-18-55mm Kit lens that came with the camera
-55-200mm VR lens (great walk around lens)
-50mm f1.8 manual focus (great for portraits)

All I really know that for terrariums a 100mm lens is best suited to work with these amazing creatures. I am not looking to spend more than 250 or so (I know, with that amount I can't get much) Does anyone have any recomendations. I wouldn't even mind getting an older lens. The 50mm is from the 80's and works great on my camera.

Any recomendations would be great. These are two I am looking at right now with my tight budget. I can get either for around 170

Tamron -70-300mm F/4-5.6(Model A17)

70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro(Motorized) - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

the tamron seems to be better because you can use the macro switch starting at 180mm whereas the sigma it's only at 300mm. They both have a 1:2 ratio and not the prefered 1:1. Does this mean the object will be twice as big or small?

I tried posting this on the dart frog forum I belong to to no avail. I know i sound like a total ameteur but that's what I am. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Overread · Dec 16, 2010

Here is an idea of 1:2 magnification that the sigma or tamron lens would give you:

IMG_0058 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

and here is an idea of 1:1 (actually its probably a little more than that but not by too much)
IMG_0058 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

As you can see the difference is not that small = however the cost is quite different between a budget type lens such as those you are looking at and the cheaper end of the macro lens market - eg Tamron 90mm macro.
However Nikon does have a rather extensive range of older lenses you can put to use - however I don't know that range of lenses to give you any firm recommendations that would fit your budget and give good quality.

alex111683 · Dec 16, 2010

Overread said:
Here is an idea of 1:2 magnification that the sigma or tamron lens would give you:

IMG_0058 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

and here is an idea of 1:1 (actually its probably a little more than that but not by too much)
IMG_0058 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

As you can see the difference is not that small = however the cost is quite different between a budget type lens such as those you are looking at and the cheaper end of the macro lens market - eg Tamron 90mm macro.
However Nikon does have a rather extensive range of older lenses you can put to use - however I don't know that range of lenses to give you any firm recommendations that would fit your budget and give good quality.

Im guessing you meant to show me this as the 1:1
IMG_0058b | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
yeah that's a big difference.

I was actually looking at the tamron 90mm macro last night wich will run me close to 400.

What do you guys think about macro filters? Which would you recomend? I think the problem would be a norrowed focal point right? At least it's somewhere to begin, that's if you guys recomend it.

knightracersi · Dec 16, 2010

I have used filters in the past and I'm not a fan of filters because you are putting glass in front of other glass. I feel like its obstructing the potential of the Lens. That is just me and i know a LOT of people are going to disagree. Also the I Just ordered the Nikon 105mm F/2.8 Micro lens. I haven't got to use it yet but most reviews says its fast. Not sure what you are looking to spend this lens is $800 but in its defense its a f/2.8 and I want to move to a Full Frame camera within 2 years so this will also work on there without having to buy new glass.

alex111683 · Dec 16, 2010

What do people think about macro filters or extension tubes? Which would you prefer?

Overread · Dec 16, 2010

Actually I totally messed up the link there - its more like this:
IMG_0437 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
for 1:1 shots - and further that example shots the massive level of additional detail that the closer native lens can bring out in a shot.

As for close up filters/diopters vs extension tubes things get more complicated (though not too much).

First up understand that both work in a similar way - they remove infinity focus from the lens and also reduce the minimum focusing distance. The result is that you end up with a lens that can focus closer; but which has also lost the abilty to focus on further off subjects (how far depends upon the amount of extension tube/power of the close up lens and the lens they are being attached to).

Secondly both methods will incur image quality degradation - close up lenses are adding glass whilst extension tubes are moving the lens away from its optimum position on the camera body. Using a high quality close up lens will incur very little to almost no detectable image quality degradation and using a sensible amount of extension tubes again has a very tiny cost that is often not noticeable.

However extension tubes give you more magnification gain when they are used on shorter focal length lenses - whilst the close up lenses (diopters/filters) give more magnification when used on longer focal length lenses.

From you own setup a set of kenko AF extension tubes on your 50mm would get you to well into the 1:1 area (magnification rough maths is lens of extension tubes divided by lens focal length. So 60mm odd of tubes/50mm of lens = 1.2:1 magnification.

I personally tend to use the close up lenses/filters/diopters more than the extension tubes because I like how they can be quickly added/removed from the setup as compared to extension tubes.

Good products:
Kenko AF extension tubes - well built and significantly cheaper than canon/nikon own brand tubes. These are pretty much the market leaders in extension tubes. They cost more than the $5 cheap tubes because they have the electrical contacts which lets you retain full control over your lens - without these contacts you lose aperture, focus and also can mess up auto exposure.

Raynox close up lenses/macro filters/diopters - these are top grade options and the DCR 250 is one of their more popular choices. Just as a point further a slightly older (no longer produced) Raynox lens was part of a setup that was proven to be sharper than the canon MPE 65mm macro lens for some high magnification macro photography - so they are certainly up to standard.

Canon - 500D and 250D are both names of close up lenses canon makes (yes they also make a 500D camera body as well.....). Like the Raynox these are high quality options that will perform very well - the 500D is overall the most popular choice.

Further from your setup you could consider a reversing ring (ebay) to link the filter threads of your 55-200mm lens to your 50mm (55-200mm mounted on camera and 50mm mounted to that lens). That will get you between 1:1 and 4:1 magnification (rough math is focal length of lens on camera body/focal length of reversed lens - so 55/50 = 1.1:1 whilst 200/50 = 4:1). I've no idea of the optical quality, but its certainly a very cheap approach to high magnification photography to consider.