Yes or No ? you tell me

[Bram]

Alright here I go again TPF.

I like the whole close-up thing or what you guys call macro. I have some water droplets I really love but the whole getting a bug to sit still while I set up my lighting and such I don't know if I can do that. I mean yeah I love the bug photos but I don't know if I can do it. So here goes my question. Is the following lens a good one to just shoot normally with like say portraits as well as close up. Or even other general things.

Nikon Canada

Let me know what you think, if you're the person that reads everything before clicking a link it's a AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8G ED.

Yes I did just realise that I could have jus posted that instead of the link.

 

[mwcfarms]

I tried this lens out in the store. Its a very nice lens. For me I went with the 105mm instead for the extra range but if you don't need the range this is a very nice lens.

 

[Bram]

Hmm nice observation. I don''t know if I would need the extra range just because if I want to maybe do portraits I think it would be kind of silly if i'm standing 10 meters away and shouting "give me sexy!" . You know what I mean?

 

[Derrel]

The 60mm macro lenses are tough to utilize for things other than close-up shooting. The focusing action is extremely hair-trigger, and at portrait ranges, it is frequently "off", or if not off, then difficult to get a lock-on quickly and efficiently. Using a 60mm macro lens for people work can be very frustrating. Macro lenses are not very good as general-use, general-subject lenses...they're not designed for those types of uses.

 

[Bram]

Hm thanks alot Derrel, always great to hear input from you. I'm just in a pickle here. I need to upgrade because I feel very limited right now with what I have. I won't be able to shoot undr low light for football games or rugby games with my 55-200 VR. It just won't do, being a student it's hard to dish out $1600.00 for a 70-200mm 2.8 I also feel the 200mm isn't a big enough zoom. Upgrading my body simply won't do will it? Do you recommend any fast glass to resolve my issue.

Thanks Derrel.

 

[mwcfarms]

Bram Im confuddled lol you mentioned portraiture and close ups in your first post but your talking sports now lol. Hey Derrel thanking for the tip on the 60mm. I guess I never thought of it being macro mainly and thought you could just use it for portraits since its a nice focal length on crop sensor. I guess they are not always interchangeable.

 

[Bram]

Hah sorry mwcfarms, I love taking pictures of like waterdrops and stuff like that and I have never tried bugs. Now I know for a fact that if I get a prime lens of 60mm I will not be shooting sports for awhile, which I simply can't do. I cannot live without shooting sports. So, I would rather spend money on a faster zoom lens then a prime one. Therefore I was wondering what would be recommended without me going bankrupt.

 

[usayit]

Just throwing this out there....

Is there an older manual focus 100mm+ Nikkor macro that the OP can obtain for a nice low price?

I was in the same boat a while back. I wanted to dabble in macro but I wasn't interested in spending loads on cash on macro ($$$ were ear-marked for other nice glass). I ended up with an oldie that I loved in the past; Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro and a Takumar 100mm macro along with a cheap macro light for next to nothing. Enjoyed my time shooting macros and still had $$$ to buy other optics that was more along my interests. IMO, auto focus is not imperative for macro.... getting enough light is.

btw... 90mm Tamron is an adaptall so it could be used on nikkors if you so inclined... is this correct for the D40x? I also have a takumar 50mm macro but that focal length seems way too short... 60mm might be as well.

 

[Derrel]

Well Bram, you are in a pickle...for many years, Nikon was a professional's camera or a serious shooter's camera...nowadays, with the huge popularity of d-slr cameras, Nikon has seen fit to cater to the needs of entry-level and student shooters with the modern day Nikkormat equivalent, in the form of what I call The Baby Nikons...the D40 and D40x being as far as I know, the first two Nikon bodies to dispense with the in-body focusing motor...

If you want to be able to use the full range of Nikkor AF lenses, you need the higher-level Nikon camwra bodies that the brand made its original name and reputation with. If you're okay with no autofocus, the Baby Nikons can mount basically ANY lens ever made in Nikon F mount. But, as you pointed out, the slower 55-200 is an f/4~5.6 variable maximum aperture lens that is simply not fast enough for night time football shooting...and you probably want to have autofocusing for night football...so...you're in a pickle.

I think the best two (affordable) lenses for night football are the 85mm f/1.4 and the 135 f/2 AF-D lenses...wide apertures, and good focusing,fast. MUCH faster aperture-wise than an f/2.8 zoom. Not every shot needs to be done with a 300 or 400mm tele lens....a LOT of football can be shot with a 35mm or 50mm lens from the sidelines...the stuff closest to your side, and the end zone scores can be shot "short"...TD passes can pop up 10-20 feet from your camera position along the back line.

Macro lenses are bad action lenses...they do not focus well beyond about 1.5 to 2 meters...the focus travel among all brands (except for the new Zeiss ZE and ZF models I've seen) is hair-trigger at normal "action" distances, which leads to lots of focusing misses and near-misses, which is the exact wrong thing for a lens used on sports, where "opportunities" are like fleeting, ephemeral chances, and the lens's focusing speed is the most-critical factor in being able to get a good shot, or ending up with an OOF,missed shot.

You really need to think about getting a body that will work with some of the better "fast action lenses" like the 50mm 1.4 AF-D, 85mm 1.8 and 1.4 AF-D models, as well as the 135/2 DC lens...those lenses focus rapidly and gather a lot of light, and are more available and affordable than other more-exotic,heavier lenses. The $199 Nikkor lenses sold with the Baby Nikons, and the consumer Nikons, really are not up to the task of nighttime sports....they're just not...I'd say the best all-around,affordable, easy to use low-light lens would be the 85mm 1.8 Nikkor...it focuses fast and well and is designed for field use, not macro-range shooting.

 

[Bram]

Woah Derrel, that's alot to take int here. I was thinking about actually purchasing a used D90 which ofcourse has that built in auto focus motor. That's a huge issue for me as you can see. I guess I was right when I said I was in ap ickle huh, Thanks alot for taking the time to explain all that to me. So first thing I need is a new body, then start saving for the glass. At least that's what I got from that huge novel you wrote me.

I was looking at the D90 and I found one for $600.00 on this forum here but I don't know if i should do it. I mean I would love the warranty and such and just brand new but I think i'll wait till the D7000 is released and the D90 price drops.

Oh and Derrel I searched the 85 1.4 and the 135 2.0 and are those really the cheapest? Both of them go over the $1,000.00 mark.

 

[djacobox372]

Hmm nice observation. I don''t know if I would need the extra range just because if I want to maybe do portraits I think it would be kind of silly if i'm standing 10 meters away and shouting "give me sexy!" . You know what I mean?

Keep in mind that for portraits you want to be further away from your subject in order to not have an unflattering foreshortening effect. 12-15 feet away is ideal.

Watch footage of a studio model shoot, the photographer is almost always nearly 20 feet away.

All the micro nikkors are great for macro, even the old manual focus ones (which won't meter on the d40x).

You should also consider what extension tubes you will use, because if you're going to go with the cheap non-cpu tubes, you might as well buy a non-cpu (ais) lens and save a bundle.

 

[Bram]

Thank you for the input. I was just wondering about the sport photos though.

 

[Derrel]

The 85mm f/1.8 AF-D is a very good value. I mentioned that gthe 85/1.4 and the 135/2 D.C. are "the best two (affordable) lenses for night football are the 85mm f/1.4 and the 135 f/2 AF-D lenses"...and yes, they are over $1,000, but today the new version Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 is in the two thousand dollar range, and the 200/2 is approaching six thousand dollars...which makes the 85mm f/1.8 a real "bargain" in Nikon (and in the Canon lineup as well).

Night time high school football presents a lot of challenges...poor light, bad weather, poor light, bad weather, and poor light...if you get my drift.

 

[edouble]

I recommend to the OP that you buy a better camera body and rent a fast zoom lens for shooting when needed.