brians4671
New member
laugh it up. i plan on getting some reading material asap. ive come a long way from minolta dimage i was using. just got this nikon with a 18-55 lens today.
new camera
- Thread starter brians4671
- Start date
laugh it up. i plan on getting some reading material asap. ive come a long way from minolta dimage i was using. just got this nikon with a 18-55 lens today.
brians4671
New member
would a Nikon 55mm F2.8 Macro lens be sufficient for close up tank photography? would i better off with a different type of lens? thanks for any feedback.
brians4671
New member
brians4671
New member
brians4671
New member
i am getting some reading on photo fundamentals today. for the most part my free time has been in the owner manual. for the most part these are auto settings. im happy with the d40 it should suit my needs for a while. today i purchased a tripod as will soon get a remote for the camera. i didnt know i would enjoy it as much as i have.
I am a long time Nikon user and have extensive use of Nikon lenses for both top water and underwater photography. Short answer to the 55mm/f2.8 question is no. It will not perform that well for you as a macro lens photographing your sps and what not. The 55mm prime lens is probably not the way to go. If you like that focal length, the 60mm macro is a long time favorite. Often referred to as the Sweet 60. It has good depth of field and seems to be a wizard at greater than 1:1 macro work.
My real recommendation for your macro shots would be to purchase a 105mm macro lens. You can shoot 1:1 or better with it down to just a few inches without using a diopter(diopters reduce DOF). The Nikon 105 was revised recently to include Vibration Reduction and is probably a mind blower. I use an older 105mm and have nailed shot after shot underwater with it, use it in my dental practice for cosmetic cases, and have photographed polyps and what not in my tank with it.
My real recommendation for your macro shots would be to purchase a 105mm macro lens. You can shoot 1:1 or better with it down to just a few inches without using a diopter(diopters reduce DOF). The Nikon 105 was revised recently to include Vibration Reduction and is probably a mind blower. I use an older 105mm and have nailed shot after shot underwater with it, use it in my dental practice for cosmetic cases, and have photographed polyps and what not in my tank with it.
brians4671
New member
what is the difference between a fixed 105mm f/2.8 and a 28-105mm f/2.8 lens?
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Think about what you are saying.
The "fixed" 105mm is "fixed" at 105mm
the 28-105mm can zoom in and out from 28mm to 105mm
The "fixed" 105mm is "fixed" at 105mm
the 28-105mm can zoom in and out from 28mm to 105mm
The 28-105 is a zoom lens(multiple focal length)that will focus down to maybe 18-24". Due to being a zoom, it will not be quite as sharp, especially in the outer 1/3's or edges of the frame. This is because of the number of optic elements in a zoom lens as compared to a prime or fixed focal length lens.
The 105mm lens focuses down to 12" and will provide a tack sharp image in most if not all areas of the frame. This will be only at the focal length of 105mm plus the 1.4-1.5x magnification that the D40 sensor causes. It is a fantastic lens and will stomp on other lenses not meant for close up work.
Can you take a decent photo of your tank with the zoom you suggested? Most likely. Can you get tack sharp close ups of your SPS or LPS specimens? Most likely not.
The 105mm lens focuses down to 12" and will provide a tack sharp image in most if not all areas of the frame. This will be only at the focal length of 105mm plus the 1.4-1.5x magnification that the D40 sensor causes. It is a fantastic lens and will stomp on other lenses not meant for close up work.
Can you take a decent photo of your tank with the zoom you suggested? Most likely. Can you get tack sharp close ups of your SPS or LPS specimens? Most likely not.
brians4671
New member
thanks guys. weighing other lens options have brought me back to your original advice ccm. which is the 105 mm lens.
ive gotten my hands on some reading material. a family member handed down "national geographic" photography field guide (secrets to making great pictures) Peter K. Burian & Robert Caputo. which Ill be spending a good deal of time with over the next week. Along with a Kodak guide to 35mm photography that will have some usefull info to offer.
im watching a few lenses on ebat but not bidding as of yet. I feel im in the wrong camera and should have done a little more research. would the d60 prevented the 1.4-1.5x magnification that the D40 sensor causes?
ive gotten my hands on some reading material. a family member handed down "national geographic" photography field guide (secrets to making great pictures) Peter K. Burian & Robert Caputo. which Ill be spending a good deal of time with over the next week. Along with a Kodak guide to 35mm photography that will have some usefull info to offer.
im watching a few lenses on ebat but not bidding as of yet. I feel im in the wrong camera and should have done a little more research. would the d60 prevented the 1.4-1.5x magnification that the D40 sensor causes?
If the Nikon 105mm is too expensive, there are non-Nikon macro lenses of about the same length which cost less but which also provide excellent results: Tamron 90, Tokina 100 and Sigma 105. There are definite pluses to the Nikon but, at you have to pay a premium to get them. The current Nikon includes vibration reduction (VR) which isn't really needed for macros (since you normal use a tripod) and the lens doesn't 'telescope' or extend towards the subject when you focus up close. But, in terms of the picture quality, magnification, etc. the non-Nikon lenses are all superb.
I think Nikon D40 through D80 have a 1.5 crop factor sensor. Not sure that Focal Length Multiplier / Crop Factor is really called magnification. Also, I don't know if that aspect of the Camera is really limiting you for your reef photography, probably not...
I have the D40, and the main thing I'm second guessing now is the 6 mega-pixels of the sensor. I'm just thinking that if I would have gotten a higher mega-pixels, that picture quality after a software based magnification/zoom would have been better.
I'm not sure about this, but I assume that if I software magnify an image 4 times from a 6 mp sensor vs. a 10mp sensor; that the 10mp sensor image would have less noise...
I have the D40, and the main thing I'm second guessing now is the 6 mega-pixels of the sensor. I'm just thinking that if I would have gotten a higher mega-pixels, that picture quality after a software based magnification/zoom would have been better.
I'm not sure about this, but I assume that if I software magnify an image 4 times from a 6 mp sensor vs. a 10mp sensor; that the 10mp sensor image would have less noise...
The D40 is an excellent camera. There are some limitations (most notably, the lack of an in-body focus motor meaning that it can't auto-focus old style lenses). But, it can take superb photographs. If you'd like more details and advice on the D40, this forum provides many examples and great expertise. You will also find many examples of macro photos taken with the D40 and a discussion of different macro lens options.
The 1.5x factor relates to the sensor size. Most consumer level cameras (Dx models) are based on a sensor which is smaller than the normal 35mm film size. As a result, the effective field of view is increase by 1.5x (for Nikon). This is actually a plus since you get a longer focal length for the same price and, if your lens is a 'full-frame' lens, the images are better since the smaller sensor chops off the edges which are where quality can be lower.
To get a full-frame camera, you'd have to move up to something like the D700 (Fx) which costs about $3,000 just for the body. If you are just starting up with a dSLR, the D40 will give you everything you need. The 6MP size won't be much of an issue unless you want to do large cropping of picture or make very big prints. If you were still looking for a camera body, the D80 might give you more options. But, since you already have the D40, keep it and learn how to take great picture with it. Then, look at up-grading.
Like Nickb says, the D40 is an excellent consumer DSLR. The 1.5x crop is actually advantageous for macro photography as it makes the 105mm something like a 160mm focal length lens.
The idea of the Tamron or Sigma macro lenses is a good one as they perform well. On the other hand, when you buy Nikon glass, it holds its resale value well and you never have a hard time turning them over when your interests change.
Put your money in the glass. The camera bodies are basically disposable since the technology with them is still going through some pretty tremendous development. Your D40 will be old news in 12-18 months just like my D2X is basically junk compared to what Nikon is making now. That being said, the D2x I use is a fantastic piece of equipment.
The idea of the Tamron or Sigma macro lenses is a good one as they perform well. On the other hand, when you buy Nikon glass, it holds its resale value well and you never have a hard time turning them over when your interests change.
Put your money in the glass. The camera bodies are basically disposable since the technology with them is still going through some pretty tremendous development. Your D40 will be old news in 12-18 months just like my D2X is basically junk compared to what Nikon is making now. That being said, the D2x I use is a fantastic piece of equipment.
brians4671
New member
wow this is great info gentlemen and i thank each one of you. it will helping me in choosing what is best.
i have a feeling like ive been bit by a bug of sorts as i scratch the surface of the world of photography.
i have a feeling like ive been bit by a bug of sorts as i scratch the surface of the world of photography.
As you get your new found fever for photography under control, remember that there are tons and tons of gadgets out there in the photo world that the marketers will try to make you believe you can't live without. That being said though, there is never a substitute or gadget that will make up for impeccable focus, exposure, and composition.
Your D40 will do most everything in still photography that a D2X or D700 will if you will take the time to learn how to make the tool perform the task. Get the fundamentals right and your photos will knock the socks off most everything that others try and do with point and shoots!
Good luck!
Your D40 will do most everything in still photography that a D2X or D700 will if you will take the time to learn how to make the tool perform the task. Get the fundamentals right and your photos will knock the socks off most everything that others try and do with point and shoots!
Good luck!
H@rry
In Memoriam
Like yourself, I recently purchased a D40 as my first venture into DSLR photography. There is a lot to learn. I want to buy the same 105 macro lense and that's next on my want list.
Something I did and I suggest that you do as well is go to the book store (or maybe even the library) and read all you can about what is involved in taking pictures like you see in books, magazines, and some you see here. Two books that I bought are Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson and Nature Photography by John Shaw. The last one talks about film (not digital) but the concepts are basically the same. He goes into quite a bit of detail explaining setting and how they interact with each other.
Good Luck!
Something I did and I suggest that you do as well is go to the book store (or maybe even the library) and read all you can about what is involved in taking pictures like you see in books, magazines, and some you see here. Two books that I bought are Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson and Nature Photography by John Shaw. The last one talks about film (not digital) but the concepts are basically the same. He goes into quite a bit of detail explaining setting and how they interact with each other.
Good Luck!
brians4671
New member
reviewing this thread I am so glad I decided to post here. you guys have been great.
img still watching ebay made a couple bids but lost. these lenses seem to hold value well. img starting to wonder if its worth the gamble to buy used when there is the possibility you may end up with a lens that has been used up.
one seller posted that he sent it into the manufacturer before the sale. if I receive a lens and find myself doing that it will not be worthwhile.
im deep into my book and enjoying it all.
img still watching ebay made a couple bids but lost. these lenses seem to hold value well. img starting to wonder if its worth the gamble to buy used when there is the possibility you may end up with a lens that has been used up.
one seller posted that he sent it into the manufacturer before the sale. if I receive a lens and find myself doing that it will not be worthwhile.
im deep into my book and enjoying it all.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Admin delete
Last edited:
