Nikon 105mm 2.5 or 135mm 2.8 as macro lenses

[Laci.4400]

Hi everyone,

I’m wondering if anyone used the above lenses with extension rings for macro shots. I could grab one of the two for a really good price. Both non ai. I’ve the 55mm f3.5 micro but would need more dof for macro.

 

[RAZKY]

Hi everyone,

I’m wondering if anyone used the above lenses with extension rings for macro shots. I could grab one of the two for a really good price. Both non ai. I’ve the 55mm f3.5 micro but would need more dof for macro.

Unless I'm photographing flat copy, I often use extension tubes with those and most other focal lengths.
Out of curiosity, why do you think you'd get more depth of field with longer lenses?

 

[Laci.4400]

Unless I'm photographing flat copy, I often use extension tubes with those and most other focal lengths.
Out of curiosity, why do you think you'd get more depth of field with longer lenses?

I used a 200mm Takumar with extension tubes for macro back in the days when I shot on film. I had plenty of room to work with that’s the reason.

 

[RAZKY]

I used a 200mm Takumar with extension tubes for macro back in the days when I shot on film. I had plenty of room to work with that’s the reason.

I was hoping you didn't actually mean dof, as you wrote!

 

[Laci.4400]

I was hoping you didn't actually mean dof, as you wrote!

Yes, sorry, I’m here and there and everywhere. Room not dof.

 

[greybeard]

Yes, either will give you a more comfortable working distance than the 55. I use a 105 f/2.8 micro nikkor with my Z50 (crop frame). It works well for what I use it for which is bug protography.

 

[RAZKY]

Unless I'm photographing flat copy, I often use extension tubes with those and most other focal lengths.

To clarify - quality non-macro lenses play well with extension tubes for most three dimensional subjects up to at least 1:1 magnification. For flat copy, of course, you generally want the flat-field correction of a dedicated macro lens.

 

[Strodav]

As far as focal length goes, the trade off is field of view vs distance to subject. The shorter the focal length the closer the lens needs to be to the subject for a chosen magnification, which can cast shadows or block light, but you get a wider field of view. The longer the focal length the farther you can get from your subject avoiding shadows or blocking light, but your fov is more narrow.

I get good results with extension tubes with both primes and macro lenses. I have a set of tubes that work with my camera’s AF system, but many times you a using manual focus with higher magnifications, so that feature is not critical.

 

[RAZKY]

As far as focal length goes, the trade off is field of view vs distance to subject. The shorter the focal length the closer the lens needs to be to the subject for a chosen magnification, which can cast shadows or block light, but you get a wider field of view. The longer the focal length the farther you can get from your subject avoiding shadows or blocking light, but your fov is more narrow.

I get good results with extension tubes with both primes and macro lenses. I have a set of tubes that work with my camera’s AF system, but many times you a using manual focus with higher magnifications, so that feature is not critical.

Actually, for a chosen magnification, the field of view is the same regardless of the focal length employed.

 

[Strodav]

Actually, for a chosen magnification, the field of view is the same regardless of the focal length employed.

You are right, I should have been more careful with my wording. I sometimes use my macro lenses for general photography, so don't always think of them as just macro lenses. I should have said is that at any set distance a shorter focal length lens provides for a wider field of view and inversely, a longer focal length lens has a more narrow field of view.

 

[JBPhotog]

Neither of these lens choices is the ideal macro lens with an extension tube. True macro(micro) lenses are flat field meaning their focus plane is flat from edge to edge across the frame. The 105 and 135 in their own right are remarkable lenses however, their focus plane is not flat meaning the centre will focus in a different area than the edge. Great for portraiture but not for tiny things.

I did own the 105 mm F2.5 for a few decades and used a thin extension tube for very tight faces but a dedicated Micro-Nikkor is the way to go for 1/2 to 1/1 magnification.

 

[cgw]

I wouldn't pass up a 90mm macro from Tamron or Tokina. Same goes for the old 105/4 Micro Nikkor. The longer macro focal length is really about greater working distance. Short teles on tubes kinda work and are useful if you're after a slightly soft edge with a sharp center. Same story with diopters like the dual element types Nikon and Canon once made. Macro lenses do, as noted above, deliver a flat field corner-to-corner thanks to a different optical formula compared to teles.