 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Questions on Nikon 105 VR macro lens
Now that I have a D-SLR I can start thinking about more lenses. One that interests me is a macro lens. It could be useful for pictures of plants. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022103nikonafsvr105.asp Question #1: What does "offering reproduction ratios of up to 1:1" mean? Question #2: It states: "up to 31cm closest focusing distance." But my 950 can focus down to 2cm away. Question #3: "Up to 154mm working distance (at near 1:1)" means? Question #4: I've seen on pages examples of using this lens to take a picture of an object far away. What is the point in this? Why would one use a macro lens for anything but up close? Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >Now that I have a D-SLR I can start thinking about more lenses. One that >interests me is a macro lens. It could be useful for pictures of plants. > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022103nikonafsvr105.asp > >Question #1: What does "offering reproduction ratios of up to 1:1" mean? Means that the image on the sensor is the same size as the object in real life. for film, something one inch high would fill the vertical size of a slide (24 mm). with digital, the crop factor will make it look even larger. >Question #2: It states: "up to 31cm closest focusing distance." But my 950 >can focus down to 2cm away. 950 can focus a lot closer, you're right. >Question #3: "Up to 154mm working distance (at near 1:1)" means? means that you can be 154 mm away from whatever you are shooting and still get the full magnification, the 1:1 size on the sensor. >Question #4: I've seen on pages examples of using this lens to take a >picture of an object far away. What is the point in this? Why would one use >a macro lens for anything but up close? Because they are generally good lenses, and if it's already on the camera, why change? >Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). for film I used to use a 90 mm Vivitar lens a lot, that worked well for me. then I got a 100 mm Pentax, that was okay. Now with my Canon I find that the 100 is too long, I keep having to move back from the subject. I kind of wish I had gotten a shorter lens. Just something to think about. Some targets like insects in-situ don't respond well to being "crowded" so a longer lens can be a benefit. Plus, less chance of blocking natural light if you aren't over top of the subject. > Some targets like insects in-situ don't respond well to being > "crowded" so a longer lens can be a benefit. Plus, less chance > of blocking natural light if you aren't over top of the subject. Whcih would make a 200 or 300 mm macro far more desirable. > Whcih would make a 200 or 300 mm macro far more desirable. Not really since the there is way too muck working distance. The 105mm is the perfect choice for macro when you need a wide range of options for creative lighting techniques. Rita > > Whcih would make a 200 or 300 mm macro far more desirable. > > Not really since the there is way too muck working distance. The 105mm is > the perfect choice for macro when you need a wide range of options for > creative lighting techniques. ?! You must have a very small studio to say that a 200mm macro affords too much working distance!  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>>Whcih would make a 200 or 300 mm macro far more desirable. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ?! You must have a very small studio to say that a 200mm macro affords too > much working distance! I'm still not clear if there is really any disadvantage to a long macro in terms of light, DOF or stability as long as you are at the same magnification it's all the same, only the view is different, more blurred out distant background & less wide angle context, different perspective. That & a 200mm macro costs more to get the same speed. I want to get that 100mm VR & I'll have the option to put my 2xTC on it! > ?! You must have a very small studio to say that a 200mm macro > affords too much working distance! I'm just limited to the great outdoors. Plus, I do the majority of my macro handheld. The added distance will create more problems than it will solve if I shoot in low light conditions without a flash, which is a great majority of the time. I can see the 200mm being beneficial in some certain circumstances, but for my shooting style it wouldn't be worth carrying the extra lens around. Rita >>Some targets like insects in-situ don't respond well to being >>"crowded" so a longer lens can be a benefit. Plus, less chance >>of blocking natural light if you aren't over top of the subject. > > Whcih would make a 200 or 300 mm macro far more desirable. There are various tradeoffs as in all things. A friend has a Sigma 180mm macro which gives him great flat field macros and very shallow DOF. I have a 100mm macro that I think is just right and is also a decent portrait and telephoto lens. 50mm macros will give more DOF, but it's trickier to light some subject that close. 300mm (any "true" macros at 300mm?) would be very flat field and very slim DOF. Could be hard towork with. It's really the subject and composition that determines the lens. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > 50mm macros will give more DOF, but it's trickier to light some subject > that close. Depth of field will be the same at the same magnification, regardless of focal length. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> 50mm macros will give more DOF, but it's trickier to light some subject >> that close. > >Depth of field will be the same at the same magnification, regardless of >focal length. I've found the same to be pretty much true with regard to shutter speed and hand-holdability; it's the magnification, not the FL. Of course, for anything not very near, the magnification is proportional to the focal length. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> Some targets like insects in-situ don't respond well to being >> "crowded" so a longer lens can be a benefit. Plus, less chance >> of blocking natural light if you aren't over top of the subject. > >Whcih would make a 200 or 300 mm macro far more desirable. I was talking about using a 100mm in place of a 50mm, but the longer, the better. You can even buy a kind of macro lens that has a focus point at about 14ft and a focal length of 1500mm, very specialized. >>Now that I have a D-SLR I can start thinking about more lenses. One that >>interests me is a macro lens. It could be useful for pictures of plants. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > size of a slide (24 mm). with digital, the crop factor will make it > look even larger. Clarification. At 1:1, 1 mm of subject will record on 1 mm of sensor (whether film or cropped digital). This is independant of enlargement. If you take a 1:1 macro shot on film at print it at 12x8, then it is no longer 1:1. To do a 12x8 print from a cropped sensor v. a film, then the enlargement will be greater, as will the softening of the image. >>Question #2: It states: "up to 31cm closest focusing distance." But my 950 >>can focus down to 2cm away. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > means that you can be 154 mm away from whatever you are shooting and > still get the full magnification, the 1:1 size on the sensor. No. You'll still be in "macro" range but at diminishing ratio. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Question #2: It states: "up to 31cm closest focusing distance." But my 950 > can focus down to 2cm away. The focus distance is from the image sensor to the object. > Question #3: "Up to 154mm working distance (at near 1:1)" means? The working distance is from the front of the lens to the object. So when you are at 1:1, the front of the lens will be ~6 inches from the thing you are photgraphing. According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: > Now that I have a D-SLR I can start thinking about more lenses. One that > interests me is a macro lens. It could be useful for pictures of plants. > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022103nikonafsvr105.asp [ ... ] > Question #2: It states: "up to 31cm closest focusing distance." But my 950 > can focus down to 2cm away. You've already gotten good answers to the other questions. However, I see a point which was not mentioned in response to this one. The 2cm focus distance with the 950 needs to be viewed in relation to the focal length of the camera's lens and the size of the sensor. That 2cm (20mm) closest focus gives you close to the same 1:1 subject:image size ratio -- but with the smaller sensor, it will image less of that subject. (Of course, blown up to screen size, it will represent more magnification.) And you have already been told about the problems with trying to photograph live subjects which get nervous when the camera's lens moves in that close -- and the shadowing of the subject by the camera and the photographer. [ ... ] > Question #4: I've seen on pages examples of using this lens to take a > picture of an object far away. What is the point in this? Why would one use > a macro lens for anything but up close? In part -- this can be viewed as demonstrating how good the lens is. It may be optimized for macro work, but it is still excellent at normal subject distances. So -- you don't *have* to get another lens of approximately the same focal length for portrait work for example. And given the probable price of this lens, this is just as well. :-) (I don't see the price mentioned in the review site to which you posted a link.) Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't see the price mentioned in the review site to which you posted a > link.) It's around $800 According to Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>: [ ... ] > > And given the probable price of this lens, this is just as well. :-) (I > > don't see the price mentioned in the review site to which you posted a > > link.) > > It's around $800 Hmm ... not as bad as I feared. I may actually be tempted to get that one someday. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >And given the probable price of this lens, this is just as well. :-) (I >don't see the price mentioned in the review site to which you posted a >link.) This is the cheapest: http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVRU.html $830 Other places are $900. No one advertises having it in stock. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). >>And given the probable price of this lens, this is just as well. :-) (I >>don't see the price mentioned in the review site to which you posted a >>link.) > > This is the cheapest: http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVRU.html $830 > Other places are $900. No one advertises having it in stock. I've been using the Sigma 105mm macro lens and it's been pretty good, though loud. (It sets off car alarms when it focuses.) It's about half that price. You can also toss a Kenko extension tube or two on the lens (or even your kit lens) if you really want to get ridiculously close. (http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824734/1/36825916) > Now that I have a D-SLR I can start thinking about more lenses. One that > interests me is a macro lens. It could be useful for pictures of plants. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Question #3: "Up to 154mm working distance (at near 1:1)" means? Close focusing distance is not important, (although working distance is important), but magnification is important. 950 can not do 1:1, but about 1:3. With the small sensor, the smallest capture is 20mm, about the same as 24mm with 1:1 on APS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.