I could use some really basic recommendations.

[AJ_]

Hi guys.

I'm interested in insect photography, and I've been doing that for a while with a Nikon D40 with the standard lens it comes with (borrowed it from my sis). As you can imagine, it is not very satisfying at all. I want to be able to zoom in on the bug and capture some really fine details, or close enough.

Well anyway, been looking to get a new camera for this purpose primarily.

What I've had recommended to me based on a 1-1.5k budget was a Nikon D5100 with a Tamron 60 macro f2 lens. Now I'm not too keen on this lens because I'm really not sure it will allow me to achieve the zooms I have in mind. So the other lens I've found is the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR. I'm a complete amateur though, and I'm not so sure what's good and what isn't. I don't want to be missing out on a really good camera given my budget.

Would you guys say the D5100 with the Nikkor lens mentioned is a good option for some really close up insect pics within this budget?

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Buckster]

Either lens is fine for what you want to do.

You say the Tamron might not allow you to achieve the zooms you want, and I don't really understand the statement. Both lenses will give you the same magnification, which is 1:1. Neither lens will take you beyond that, unless you employ some other hardware with them.

The advantage that the Tamron has is its f/2 aperture. Now, that doesn't do anything at all for your macros, as you'll want to stop down considerably for DOF purposes (and get a light!), but for other things you'll shoot, like portraits or other things that have a background you'd like separated from, having f/2 is a really nice thing to have.

The advantage that the Nikon has is that it's a bit longer, at 85mm instead of the Tamron's 60mm. In practical terms, it means that with the Tamron, you have to be about 4" from the bug to achieve 1:1 magnification. With the Nikkor, you only have to get to about 10.75" from the bug to get the same magnification. Bugs generally sit still longer the further you are from them, so that's a distinct advantage. It's why I chose a 180mm lens for my macros (I achieve 1:1 at 18.5" with it).

The Nikon will likely have a better build and production quality as well.

 

[TheFantasticG]

I highly suggest spending the entire of the money on the glass and save up for a new body later. I've been shooting bugs a couple years now and the best setup I have come across for magnification, working distance, and IQ + color rendition is the Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM APO EX (non-os) with a Sigma 1.4x TC APO EX. I'm fairly certain you can get both for under $1,000 and some Kenko AF extension rings and you should be go to go for sometime to come.

Later, you can add a flash as well, but on a day with no wind or inside shooting you could get away with slower shutter speeds.

 

[orionmystery]

Both the Tamron 60mm F2 and Nikon 85 f3.5 allows you to get to only 1:1. If you want to get even closer i.e achieve higher magnification, you'll need to add on extension tubes and/or teleconverter.

The only lens that allows you to go beyond 1:1 (1x) without any add on is Canon's MP-E65. 1X to 5X, but unlike other macro lenses, you can't go lower than 1X so you won't be able to shoot full body shot of say a dragonfly.

Sorry Buckster, i don't think the Nikkor 85 's minimum working distance (i.e at 1X, front of lens to subject) is that big. I did a quick search and found the info on Ken Rockwell's site. The minimum working distance for the 85mm f3.5 should be 5.5". That's more like it. I know the Canon 100L 's MWD is about 6". Same for Nikkor 105mm. 4 inches for the tamron 60mm is correct.

I used to own a sigma 180mm and its mwd is 9.4 inches, again, front of lens to subject. You probably were measuring from sensor plane to subject? That should be called focusing distance.

 

[orionmystery]

I found additional info on this page. Great for reference. Check out Table 2, MFD vs MWD . Minimum focusing distance vs minimum working distance:

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Macro Lens Review

[TABLE="class: ComparisonTable, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: ComparisonTableSelected"]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Overread17 5]

First up its important to realise that the focal length of a lens for macro photography won't change the frame that you can capture. All true macro lenses (which is the primes - ie single focal length) all work to give the same level of magnification - that of 1:1 or size of the subject as reflected on the sensor by the lens : size of the subject in real life.

As a result a 35mm macro and a 180mm macro will give you the exact same frame when used at 1:1 magnification (ie as close as they can focus). The difference is that the 180mm will have more working distance (distance from the lens to the subject, not the same as minimum focusing distance which is sensor to subject). Furthermore the background areas of the longer focal length lenses will be more blurry than on shorter focal length lenses. The actual depth of field though (ie the bit that is sharp) will remain the same.

If you want to get more magnification than the 1:1 capabilities of regular macro lenses I'd strongly suggest reading the following thread:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/284253-crazy-macro.html

There is also this thread which goes into more detail on alternative options to consider
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/macro-photography/281132-how-shoot-macro-photos-budget.html
There are also some good links to replies to that thread so do read through to find them.


As a first point of advice though I would strongly suggest getting a regular macro lens of at least 90mm or more in focal length to start with. Pretty much all methods for going beyond the 1:1 point involve either a base macro lens or loss of infinity focus. As a result having a regular macro lens still retains an important place in the macro shooters bag for those larger bugs and subjects.
Also options like the Canon MPE 65mm macro and other high magnification macro setups are very challenging to shoot and light - getting to grips with 1:1 is really strongly advised before you start jumping into 2:1 - 3:1 and beyond. Further the higher the magnifications the more reliance you will need on additional lighting or at the very least on strong tripod setups - so you'll have to consider those as investment points as well

 

[DanPower]

Have you tried lens reversing as a start? I don't know how advanced you are, personally I'm very new to photography.. I wanted to try macro but without spending thousands on lenses and for 5 bucks I picked up an adaptor that lets me mount my kit lens in reverse and gives super close shots with tiny DOF... it's not exactly ideal but it cost next to nothing so I can experiment a bit with close up stuff and get a feel for it before I drop heaps of money on new gear...

This might suit you? 55mm Macro Reverse Adapter Ring For NIKON D200 D60 D40x | eBay

Ignore me if you're way past this, but I just thought I'd share since I've found it to be an easy way to have a play with macro without emptying the bank account...

 

[AJ_]

Thanks a lot for the replies guys, greatly appreciated.

It's good to know that both the lenses will give me what I'm looking for. Yes I did see that amazing Cannon 1-5x zoom lens, but I was given to understand it has a really steep learning curve and I really am a beginner, don't even know a lot of the terminology when it comes to photography.

As of now I'm leaning more towards that Nikkor lens, simply because it's an official Nikon one and has a greater working distance, something I could definitely use when it comes to bugs.

I'm definitely going to be looking over these replies and the topics suggested, I still have a month before I travel to where I'm going to be taking these pics, so I do have time to do some research.

Thanks again.

 

[kundalini]

...As of now I'm leaning more towards that Nikkor lens, simply because it's an official Nikon one and has a greater working distance, something I could definitely use when it comes to bugs.....

I have the 105mm f/2.8 and can only highly recommend it. I may be slightly biased though, as I've yet to try another macro lens and all my other lenses sport Nikkor on the barrel.

 

[AJ_]

^Wow, funny you should mention that lens in particular. Today I was talking with the folks at my local camera shop and they recommended it too. I told them I did look it up, but it costs 1k and it's too much for me atm. Then I resolved myself to buy it anyway, just because it's such a sweet looking lens. Might have to borrow money to that end though, I really need it by the end of the month.