To all of you macro-ers.

[Markw]

I was asking in part to ask which lens to get (VR vs nonVR). Im not too positive on that one yet.

Mark

 

[Overread39 2]

Well budget would be a good starting point,

 

[Markw]

Lets not talk budget. Im getting the D40 so Ill just say the best lens for the money. Realistic.

Mark

 

[Overread39 2]

best lens for realistic money would be the sigma 180mm f3.5 macro I would think.
Its on par in quality with the canon 180mm macro - whilst being half the price - and the canon 180mm is thier top range macro
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm

After that I would say sigma 150mm f2.8 is a slightly cheaper macro lens which also has a good working distance.

Both the 150 and 180mm sigmas will work very well with sigma teleconverters - the 1.4 with almost no loss in quality and the 2* with minimal loss (the 2* also makes the macro from a 1:1 to a 2:1 - which means a larger magification - which whilst being a real pain to work with at times - it is still a great way to get more out of the lens.)

After that there is the nikon 105mm macro with VR - which as already said, won't help with macro work at all, but is a boon for non macro usage - very tempting, but not essential for macro work.
There is also the sigma 105mm macro - this won't work with the sigma teleconverters - I am unsure if the nikon will work with them or not.
I also hear that the sigam 105 will work with tamron teleconverters

 

[icassell]

best lens for realistic money would be the sigma 180mm f3.5 macro I would think.
Its on par in quality with the canon 180mm macro - whilst being half the price - and the canon 180mm is thier top range macro
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_180mm_macro_review.htm

After that I would say sigma 150mm f2.8 is a slightly cheaper macro lens which also has a good working distance.

Both the 150 and 180mm sigmas will work very well with sigma teleconverters - the 1.4 with almost no loss in quality and the 2* with minimal loss (the 2* also makes the macro from a 1:1 to a 2:1 - which means a larger magification - which whilst being a real pain to work with at times - it is still a great way to get more out of the lens.)

After that there is the nikon 105mm macro with VR - which as already said, won't help with macro work at all, but is a boon for non macro usage - very tempting, but not essential for macro work.
There is also the sigma 105mm macro - this won't work with the sigma teleconverters - I am unsure if the nikon will work with them or not.
I also hear that the sigam 105 will work with tamron teleconverters

Well, look at Daan's (danoe) macros with his Sigma 105. I daresay those are hard to equal. You may find that the 150-180 range is too long for you if you also want to use the lens for portraiture. I find my Canon 100mm is a great portrait lens as well.

 

[Markw]

I am not worried about portrait pictures too much. I will be using the macro for small bugs and flowers.

Mark

 

[icassell]

I am not worried about portrait pictures too much. I will be using the macro for small bugs and flowers.

Mark

Gotcha. Well, I've found that 100mm works great, but can't speak for the longer ones.

 

[Markw]

Im pretty sure that this should be in a new thread, but I figured Id ask here first. I wanted to ask what all types of situations a macro lens would work in. I mean is it just up-close images?

Mark

 

[icassell]

Im pretty sure that this should be in a new thread, but I figured Id ask here first. I wanted to ask what all types of situations a macro lens would work in. I mean is it just up-close images?

Mark

Well, my Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro is a beautiful macro lens. It also is a beautiful 100mm lens -- does great short-tele work with a very nice Bokeh.

 

[Overread39 2]

A 100mm macro lens is a simple 100mm lens in all respects - however it has extra lens elements that allow it to close focus ( in the case of proper prime macro lenses this is down to cms from the subject) which allows you to get those close up shots - there is also a level of maginification in them - most are 1:1 (lifesize on the sensor).
So you can use your macro - like others said- as a general portrate lens.
for me part of the appeal of the 150mm was not only that it has a greater working distance (you can get 1:1 focusing without being as close as with a shorter focal length lens - though we are talking cms here) but also that it can make a good general wildlife prime lens as well.

 

[icassell]

A 100mm macro lens is a simple 100mm lens in all respects - however it has extra lens elements that allow it to close focus ( in the case of proper prime macro lenses this is down to cms from the subject) which allows you to get those close up shots - there is also a level of maginification in them - most are 1:1 (lifesize on the sensor).
So you can use your macro - like others said- as a general portrate lens.
for me part of the appeal of the 150mm was not only that it has a greater working distance (you can get 1:1 focusing without being as close as with a shorter focal length lens - though we are talking cms here) but also that it can make a good general wildlife prime lens as well.

... a related question ...

I would be concerned that you would be more subject to camera shake with the longer macro lens if you're hand holding -- isn't that the case?

 

[Overread39 2]

well the distances for macro are really cms in reality - which is why you can still get good bugshots with the 100mm as you can with a 150 and 180mm lens - so you are not increasing distance enough (I feel) to have a noticable effect on camera shake.
One other reason though that I went for 150mm is that the longer the focal length you use - the more background blur you get for a given aperture.
That is the reason lenses like the sigam 70-300mm work well as macro flower lenses as the 300mm end blurs the backgroud very well. The only other way to get backgrounds as good is with layered shots on a tripod at different focal points using a very wide aperture. Then you stack these shots together (program or manual) to build up the photo - giving the depth of field of a larger aperture whilst retaining the background blur of a smaller aperture.

 

[Markw]

So does this mean that the 70-300 sigma will work well?

Mark

 

[Overread39 2]

the Sigma 70-300mm macro is not pure macro - rather its a zoom lens with a close focusing element (the macro is a marketing ploy)

here: a 100% crop from an insect shot (100% crop means that it is the cropped (cut) out section from the full sized photo with no size alterations)

link to full shot: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/random k/IMG_0058.jpg
That is about as close as you can get with the 70-300mm and that is shooting at just under 0.5m which is a very long distance - this can be a real pain to work with at times as it is a misleadingly long distance (and when you think macro you think close up). Insect wise it is good as it won't spook them, but as the next shot shows its not as close as a true macro:

link to full shot: http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/my works/yorkshire 2/IMG_0713nosharpen.jpg
(please note that the very small depth of field (area of photo in sharpness) is very fine in this shot - this is a result of me having an f2.8 addiction that week - with a smaller aperture (thus larger f number) like f8 or f13 that depth of field would increase

there is another 100% crop and it shows a much more detailed shot of an insect. The difference is large. Further the sigma 70-300mm is a £100 budget line lens - its not he best there is - whilst the prime macro lenses start at around £300ish and are made specifically for macro work - though they can still work as normal lenses.

If it is all you can afford the sigma 70-300mm (APO edition) is a good lens to get - its got a wide variety of uses and generally lets you have a go at most things - though it can't hold up to a more specific and higher quality lens I do rate it a very good all rounder lens and also a great lens for getting your feet wet with photography

 

[LWW1]

I just shoot handheld with a non-VR macro lens. I also use a Speedlite 430EX, which helps alot. The handheld thing is just something you have to do alot and then you'll get better and better in it.

Something which helps me that I seldom see mentioned is inhalee - fire shutter release - exhale.

Point your index finger straight out and watch it bob as you breathe. Now do it and hold your brath for a moment.

Other things that help is to hold your arms in against your rib cage instead of splayed out. Olant feet firmly. Lean against anything solid if available and safe.

Here's another one I seldom see mentioned ... I'm a target shooter also and although both hobbies require similar skills they are often taught differently, I have cross used many little things ... is fire the shutter only with the tip of your finger. It is normal to squeeze the shutter release using your whole hand in a squeezing motion subconsciously.

If you hold the camera with 3 fingers and a thump immobile and use only the movement of 1 finger to press the shutter release you will remove a lot of body induced movement.

LWW