what to buy

[revid]

Hi guys(gals),I have a nikon d7000 and always wanted to do some macro photography or atleast some real closeups.I have a nikkor 18-105 3.5,tamron 17-50 2.8 and a nikkor 70-300 vr 4.5 now.Would like some suggestions and also what makes a macro lens a macro lens?I know it sounds stupid but I see some lens with the same numbers as a lens thats called a macro.

 

[Overread]

The proper defininition of a macro lens is one which is capable of focusing a reflection on the sensor which is the same size as the subject is in real life (called 1:1 ratio)

However there are a selection of lenses which carry the name "macro" which are not true macro lenses, instead its a marketing move to denote that the lens has a close focusing setup typically only capable of 0.5:1 (half life size) magnification - although some can be weaker still. This is typically reserved to zoom lenses (like 70-300mm options) and not prime lenses (though I'm aware one of the sigma 28/24mm lenses carries the name when its not a macro).

Note that Nikon also calls its own macro lenses micro instead of macro.


However what kind of macro work are you aiming to produce, what subjects do you want to work with? Also what kind of budget do you have to work with? Macro has one advantage that you can get some good quality results with cheaper options if budgets are constraining.

 

[jriepe]

Revid,

I also have the Nikon D7000 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens. I've noticed that most macro shooters use a lens around the 90 - 105mm range. I have the Tamron 90mm macro lens but rarely use it preferring to instead use my Tamron 180mm macro. I shoot spiders and insects and the 180 gives me more working room. One thing about macro is you don't necessarily have to shoot subjects at the minimum focusing distance which gives you the 1:1 ratio. I rarely shoot at the minimum focusing distance and do some cropping if need be which is most of the time. Of course using the bigger lens allows for less cropping. The 90mm Tamron is a sharp inexpensive lens but it is not internal focusing. The Tokina 100mm macro is considered a very sharp lens if it is still available.

Jerry

 

[revid]

I like to shoot closeups of just about anything that I can get to show great detail.As with anyone and everyone money is always an issue but I can and or would afford something up to $400.So I guess my 70-300 would not be classified as a macro for sure even though you can get some nice detail at the full focal range of the lens?So with my budget give me some nice suggestions on some lenses please.I also have to open up another can of worms since I mentioned my 70-300.I owned a tamron 70-300 before I bought the nikkor 70-300 vr just for the fact of the vr rating cause some people were saying it was a bettr lense because of the vr.I have to say I went bk and looked at some shots I took with the tamron and was able to get more detail with it as compared to the nikkor.The nikkor was alot more expensive,regretful for selling the tamron now.Does anyone share the same opinion I wonder.thanks guys.

 

[jriepe]

Amazon.com: Used and New: Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP AF/MF 1:1 Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Camerasere is a link for the Tamron 90mm for under $400. For $400 or less you'll probably have to go the used route. I bought my Tamron 17-50 used and have had no regrets.

Jerry

 

[revid]

thanks Jerry,will give it a thought.Obvisiously you do more shooting than I do,what do you use your 17-50 mainly for?You said you use a 105mm for macro,is it a decent lens as compared to the 90?

 

[jriepe]

thanks Jerry,will give it a thought.Obvisiously you do more shooting than I do,what do you use your 17-50 mainly for?You said you use a 105mm for macro,is it a decent lens as compared to the 90?

I don't have a 105mm macro. I use my Tamron 180mm. I use the 17-50 for landscape shots. The 17-50 will focus very closely and provide great detail but it is not a macro lens.

Jerry

 

[revid]

lol.I stand corrected.Is it because the 17-50 isn't a 1:1 ratio that its not considered a macro ?About macro photography,is it that you have to get really close,ie:11.4"(one of the macro lenses specs)or to have a 1:1 ratio.Iam trying to understand what I would look for or need for a macro lens,hope Iam not being to much of a bother.You can see the lenses I have and just trying to get the right lenses for what I like to shoot.Something for portrait,lanscape and macro.Theres so much numbers attached to lenses that its very confusing to a new guy trying to buy the right equipment.

 

[Judobreaker]

You need a lens that is able to focus really close, so basically you are indeed looking for a lens that would require you to get really close to your subject.
For example, the minimum focus distance of the micro-nikkor 105mm lens is about 30cm which is pretty close. ^^

When it comes to finding a good macro lens you'll need to keep a few things in mind.

The most important thing to know is what your subject is going to be.
Are you going to shoot simple things like coins or other non-moving objects or are you planning to chase after every bug you can find?
If the latter interests you even a tiny bit you should definitely consider buying a longer focal length.
The longer the focal length the further away you can be from your subject to get the magnification you want.
For insects a focal length of 100mm or higher is advised because any shorter will make it much more likely you will spook the insect away before you get the shot.

Something I think is not that important is the aperture.
Of course a large aperture is cool and all but when you're shooting at 1:1 with an aperture of 2.8 your DOF is going to be extremely thin and you'll hardly have anything in focus.
Sometimes this is fun and gets a nice shot but most likely you will be shooting at apertures somewhere between 8 and 16 mostly.
Only spend money on this if you have enough to spare.

Some macro lenses have a VR (Vibration Reduction) function built in them.
Of course this is a handy thing to have every once in a while, I can handheld macro shots with my VR lens if I have enough light which makes it so much easier to get that insect before it flies away.
This feature does however make the lens much more expensive. First make sure you have a good tripod before considering VR, having a tripod is more important!


So, in a nutshell: The most important numbers to look at are the minimal focus distance and the focal length.


If you're considering some lenses just make sure you read the specs.
I usually use this website: Digital Photography Review
It lists specs very nicely and it'll usually tell you when it is a true macro lens in the description.


Something else to remember: Macro lenses are not limited to macro work alone! I've shot some very nice portraits with my 105mm macro lens. ^^

 

[jriepe]

Revid,

Yes the 17-50 lens is not a macro lens because it is not providing a 1:1 ratio at the minimum focusing distance. The max. aperture on my 90mm is f/2.8 and with the 180mm it is f/3.5. Therefore if I'm manually focusing the viewfinder will be a bit brighter with the 90mm but the difference is not significant. This past year I've started auto focusing more of my shots and the focus has been right on. As stated before you do not have to shoot at the minimum focusing distance which provides the 1:1 ratio to get sharp, detailed shots. Adding a little distance and then cropping later will still provide very good shots and will also give more DOF.

When I'm out shooting spiders and insects I rarely use a tripod but will at times use a monopod. BUT: I do use a macro flash bracket with two SB600 speedlights and I use my built in flash in commander mode. I use an aperture setting of around f/16 and without providing my own light the shutter speed plus any movement of the subject would cause blur. I shoot in manual and a typical setting depending upon the distance and light would be ISO200, f/16, 1/160 shutter speed with the SB600's to fire at 1/8 power. So there is more to consider when getting into macro than just the lens.

The macro flash bracket I use allows the SB-600's to extend to the end of my lens. With the 90mm I could get by with one flash unit attached probably directly into the hot shoe but the 180mm is longer and would block the light. If you have any more questions or are confused with any of this info. don't be afraid to ask because I'm always willing to help and if I don't know the answer someone else wiser than me will.

In one of your earlier posts you had mentioned the 70-300mm Tamron lens. I have the later version of that lens with vibration compensation and am very happy with it.

Jerry

 

[revid]

yeah I had the tamron 70-300,sold it and bought a nikkkor 70-300 vr but I think the tamron shot as good and good closer detail at a given distance.I shot a pic of my fiance's nursing school at about 10ft where you could almost read the letters on it and couldn't duplicate this the the nikkor.So I guess what your saying is that with most macros to get the 1:1 ratio you have to be so close,you block alot of your light and would need the equipment to light up the subject.Trying to buy a longer focal lens with a wide aperture can get expensive I say.The reason I bought the 70-300 was to have the zoom option for closeups and the convenience to be further away from the subject:ie wildlife to take shots with out spooking them.Do you or would you notice the difference in the ratio on any given shot?That ratio business puzzles me as to why it is so important .Anyway guys great info.later

 

[jriepe]

The ratio is important because with a 1:1 ratio the subject will appear on the sensor at actual size. The American penny is approximately 3/4 inch in diameter. If the sensor in your camera is 3/4 inch in width that penny will cover the entire width of your sensor with a true macro lens. Now take any of your other lenses and focus on the penny at minimum focusing distance and see how much area it covers in your viewfinder. That's the difference.

Jerry