OT: Macro Lense

[ortie001]

I have a Nikon DSLR. I'd like to get a macro lens, just for close up coral and fish pictures. I currently have an 18-55 mm lens, and a 55-300 mm lens. I can't remember what the other one is off the top of my head but I have to move to focus with it My girlfriend said I had to learn to take pictures with it before I could use a focusing lense. Anyone have a recommendation? My girlfriend would like to keep to Nikon glass. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Anthrax15]

Zibba is your Nikon Macro God here. You'll want to ask him.

I have a Canon and use a 100mm F4 Macro. Works beautifully!

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/anthrax15/12449810165/" title="IMG_0944 by Anthrax15, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/12449810165_278ac5fbc7.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="IMG_0944"></a>

 

[ortie001]

Yeah, was kinda hoping he was on tonight and chime in on this one.

 

[Jerms01]

I'm tagging along on this one. I have a Nikon D5100 and have tried extension tubes and close-up filters as cheap alternatives but can't seem to get exactly what I want. The close up filters did work better than tubes but still not quite right. Here are some examples I have only been playing with the close up filters for about a week. They seem to work ok on my 18-55 but are horrible on my 55-200.

 

[Anthrax15]

Extension tubes seem to work better on fixed focal length lens.

A tripod is highly recommended, if not essential for Macro photography

 

[Jerms01]

Extension tubes seem to work better on fixed focal length lens.

A tripod is highly recommended, if not essential for Macro photography

Yeah I always use a tripod. I have a 50mm f1.8 prime lens may give that a shot with the tubes. Thanks for the info!

 

[ortie001]

Yeah, I do okay with my 18-55 lens, but nothing like Zibba or Anthrax15. My girlfrind takes better pictures than me, but she hasn't taught me much. She gave me a couple books and the fixed lens, but still will not let me touch her camera.:rolleye1: I guess I can kind of understand since hers is 4 or 5 times the cost of my D3200, but it helps me learn to take pictures with the newb mode.

 

[zibba]

Just got home and saw this. I can give a few alternative options tomorrow but I've been using the same Nikon 105mm macro since 2006. I've upgraded camera bodies 3 times now and the glass has maintained it's value and was worth the additional cost in my opinion.

Don't necessarily need vibration reduction, however, my 105mm is. I shoot on a tripod or with a high shutter so it's rare I need it. I suppose it helps though.

I don't have extension tubes. I'd like to get them one day. But if you're after sharp macro photos, I think you'll be a little disappointed with going the 50mm prime + tube route.

 

[zibba]

I don't know if I can offer any more advice than what's in Ken Rockwell's post here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/best-macro-lenses.htm

Hopefully that will help you make a decision.

If it were me, I'd get a lens that wasn't DX specific (due to potential upgrade to a full frame) but most people are perfectly happy with DX bodies -- and, rightfully so by the way, they take great pictures!

The Nikon 85mm is a good option if you want DX glass. There are, of course, non-Nikon lenses but my preference is to stick with Nikon glass.

 

[bambam918]

Zibba do you keep your lights at the cor/intensity when ever you take photos? Assuming you have LED. if so do you just manually set white balance? Speaking of WB, is it ok to use a white board on the exterior of the tank to set it up. Thought I read some where the white board needed to be inside the tank......

Thanks for the help

 

[Jerms01]

Sorry don't mean to hijack but I figured I am not the only one with these questions

I have been looking at macro lenses but am not sure the difference other than larger apertures such as 4.5 instead of 2- and price. I see a bunch of cheaper alternative lenses such as Tamron and Sigma which are in the $100-200 price range as opposed to $400+ for Nikon. These usually are zoom lenses which I know are not "true" 1:1 macro but they have a higher minimum aperture and I am guessing a closer focusing distance.

What aperture is your 105mm lens and what aperture do you normally shoot at? What is your normal focusing distance or does it vary?

From my research it seems as though you normally have to set the aperture pretty high 9+ in order to to have a big enough depth of field. So is aperture a big concern anyways?

And please feel free to correct me if I am completely way off base here LOL.

 

[Jerms01]

Sorry Zibba did not see you already responded.

 

[zibba]

Zibba do you keep your lights at the cor/intensity when ever you take photos? Assuming you have LED. if so do you just manually set white balance? Speaking of WB, is it ok to use a white board on the exterior of the tank to set it up. Thought I read some where the white board needed to be inside the tank......

Thanks for the help

I just changed from Halide to LEDs over one of my tanks but over our other tank, which has had LEDs for awhile, I just take the pictures and try to adjust the WB as best I can during post-processing. In lightroom, that's often the 20k-50k setting for my LED tank. Under the halide though, things turned out pretty accurate when I took the picture in RAW and set it to 10-12k.

I never use a white-balance reference in the tank. If you want to play around with that option though, try placing a piece of PVC inside the tank as a reference instead of the white board.

If there isn't enough light (e.g., I'm trying to shoot with a relatively fast shutter and don't want to raise ISO because of noise issues), I'll definitely turn up the whites and blue channels to get more.

Sorry don't mean to hijack but I figured I am not the only one with these questions

I have been looking at macro lenses but am not sure the difference other than larger apertures such as 4.5 instead of 2- and price. I see a bunch of cheaper alternative lenses such as Tamron and Sigma which are in the $100-200 price range as opposed to $400+ for Nikon. These usually are zoom lenses which I know are not "true" 1:1 macro but they have a higher minimum aperture and I am guessing a closer focusing distance.

What aperture is your 105mm lens and what aperture do you normally shoot at? What is your normal focusing distance or does it vary?

From my research it seems as though you normally have to set the aperture pretty high 9+ in order to to have a big enough depth of field. So is aperture a big concern anyways?

And please feel free to correct me if I am completely way off base here LOL.

Yeah, I think that the Tamron/Sigma lens are decent options but I just prefer sticking with Nikon lenses. In the article I linked above, Ken Rockwell says that the Tamron/Sigma are optically the same.

 

[Weyrman]

I have a Nikon DSLR. I'd like to get a macro lens, just for close up coral and fish pictures. I currently have an 18-55 mm lens, and a 55-300 mm lens. I can't remember what the other one is off the top of my head but I have to move to focus with it My girlfriend said I had to learn to take pictures with it before I could use a focusing lense. Anyone have a recommendation? My girlfriend would like to keep to Nikon glass. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks for the post Ortie001. I've been trying to figure out what to do for a macro lens too. Will be following along.




Anyone tried a 150mm+ macro lens who could comment? From reading Ken Rockwell's post ( thanks Zibba!) something in that range means you don't have to be so close for the shot.

 

[ortie001]

Thanks for the read zibba! I think I'm going with a 105 mm lens. I was kind of leaning that way from the start. I was looking at 85 to 105 mm I guess we'll see how it goes.