 |
 | 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 / July 2006macro lens
Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon D50. Has anyone done a technical/value for money comparison between Sigma, Tamron and Nikon's own Macro lenses? Thanks NualaM >Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon >D50. It depends on what you plan to take pictures of. Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). >>Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon >>D50. > > It depends on what you plan to take pictures of. > > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). Probably some small stuff! Very few would go wrong going with one of the Micro Nikkors, as Don said though it can depend here just how much working room you need. Around 100mm is a nice size, allows you more space than a 50mm and can also be used as a portrait lens. Many really like the Tamron 90mm F2,8, it is pretty sweet. > >>Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon > >>D50. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Many really like the Tamron 90mm F2,8, it is pretty sweet. This is weird; I've been hearing for all my life that the 90/100 mm macros are nice because they give you more working distance, and they can also be useful portrait lenses. The weird thing is I'm *still* hearing that in discussions specific to crop-factor DSLRs. And while it's certainly true that a 105mm on a 1.5x crop factor body gives you yet more working distance, it also requires more light for the higher shutter speeds. And I really think it's a bit long for most portrait uses. I do certainly find my Sigma 105mm macro useful on my D200, for macro work. (I don't, however, especially highly recommend it; it's adequate, I'd say.)  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> With the smaller sensors, you do a bit need higher shutters speeds for the same lens for hand held use, but you can easily go a stop faster in ISO than you could with film without sacrificing the image as much. If you have a tripod, it is a non-issue. Also moving back more to fit your subject in increases your depth of field which helps in macro. This is partially compensated by the need to enlarge further to reach the same print size which reduces the depth of field, but not as much as backing up helps. In recent years, portraits are taken with longer and longer focal lengths. People look their best from far away and one of the "rules" of photography is to flatter your subject. When showing women portraits of themselves framed the same but with different focal lengths, they always have picked the longest one as best. With my Rebel XT, most liked the images best that were around 200mm focal length. Going out to 300 can result being a very long way back and the trade-offs there seem to eat up the gains. I would say these days a good portrait lens would be 135-200mm on an APS sized sensor at least for head-shots. For upper body or full pictures, you could use a shorter focal length but still maintaining a long distance. I'm not sure why it is this way, but it seems to be in style to use long focal lengths. Fashion magazine pictures often very telephoto. Maybe this is what drives it. In any case, backing up changes the perspective in a way that the subjects seem to like. > This is weird; I've been hearing for all my life that the 90/100 mm > macros are nice because they give you more working distance, and they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > work. (I don't, however, especially highly recommend it; it's > adequate, I'd say.) >Also moving back more to fit your subject in increases your depth of field >which helps in macro. This is partially compensated by the need to enlarge >further to reach the same print size which reduces the depth of field, but >not as much as backing up helps. No. For anything with magnification much above 0.1, depth of field is determined entirely by magnification. The lens focal length does not come into it; the DoF on a 1:1 photo with a 50mm lens is the same as that with a 100mm lens. Depth of field, T, is given by T = 2*C*N*(m+1)/m^2 where C is the size of the circle of confusion you wish to achieve, and N is the f-number. For a given magnification on the image, of course, the amount of print magnification required to produce the same image is identical. The only thing which alters with different focal length lenses is the perspective, because the working distance has changed. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>Also moving back more to fit your subject in increases your depth of field >>which helps in macro. This is partially compensated by the need to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The only thing which alters with different focal length lenses is the > perspective, because the working distance has changed. This is true except that the previous poster was actually reducing the magnification level by backing up since he was trying to fill a smaller sensor (than 135 film) with the same size subject, therefore also requiring a larger print magnification. >>Also moving back more to fit your subject in increases your depth of field >>which helps in macro. This is partially compensated by the need to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > David This is the way I understand it: DOF will be the same and has more to do with distance from the object as the poster says. Perspective on a camera with a 1.5x sensor is another story. A lot of people with these cameras are running out and getting 50mm 1.8 fixed lenses for portrait work. Since you have to move back to fill the frame, as compared to a full frame camera, you won't get the distortion you normally would if you put a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. IMHO, the 105 Macro is a great lens, and is good for portrait, but the 60mm Macro is also a great lens and would be good for portraits as well. I also like being a bit closer to the subject when I work. As for bugs and things, the focusing distance on the 105 is farther away at 1:1, but the difference between the closest focusing distance between the 105 and the 60 is only 4", based on Nikon's specs. And the 60 is a lot cheaper and a little lighter. If you want to save money, you can always go with an older AI Macro lens. I moved up because I wanted the camera to do the metering, but if you are willing to meter manually, these older lenses take fantastic Macro/Micro images and are a real bargain. I've taken some great photos with my older 55 Macro. Just takes a while to get the exposure right. > The weird thing is I'm *still* hearing that in discussions specific to > crop-factor DSLRs. And while it's certainly true that a 105mm on a > 1.5x crop factor body gives you yet more working distance, it also > requires more light for the higher shutter speeds. And I really think > it's a bit long for most portrait uses. All of this depends on what other lenses people have. I've got the 50 mm f/1.8 and the kit 18-70, so the 105 makes a nice jump for me for both the macro and a short tele longer than what I've got. And VRl lets me shoot helicopters. Doesn't IF reduce the extention factor? SignatureRebecca Ore > >Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon > >D50. > > It depends on what you plan to take pictures of. > > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). I am particularly interested in flowers, birds and insects but also close up of shells, rocks etc. I use a tripod. Nuala >> >Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon >> >D50. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > close up of shells, rocks etc. I use a tripod. > Nuala 105 non-VR Nikkor micro, used. SignatureRebecca Ore >> I am particularly interested in flowers, birds and insects but also >> close up of shells, rocks etc. I use a tripod. >> Nuala > > 105 non-VR Nikkor micro, used. I have both the 105mm VR and the AF-D version and I'll tell you that I much prefer the older one to the newer VR version. They both are optically perfect and give great macro results. You'll never be able to tell the difference between the two looking at the final pictures in a double-blind test. I do find the VR version slightly better for portraiture, though. Since all my macro is done in manual I find the VR version a waste for my shooting style. If your buying one of these lenses primarily for macro I would lean towards the AF-D version since you should be able to pick up a used one for a couple hundred dollars vs $700 for the VR version. Rita > >Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my Nikon > >D50. > > It depends on what you plan to take pictures of. > > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). I am particularly interested in flowers, birds and insects but also close up of shells, rocks etc. I use a tripod. Nuala > Can anyone advise me as to the best dedicated Macro lens for my > Nikon > D50. Has anyone done a technical/value for money comparison between > Sigma, Tamron and Nikon's own Macro lenses? > Thanks > NualaM Don't neglect to consider the Tokina 100mm AT-X macro. What about the Sigma 105 F1.4? How do the Nikkors and Tamron/Sigma compare in price? > What about the Sigma 105 F1.4? How do the Nikkors and Tamron/Sigma > compare in price? Truthfully there isn't a bad 100mm macro, even Vivitar's tests well. I've used Canon, Nikon, and a Tamron 90 all were great lenses. Just bought a used 55 f2.8 Nikon AF and the lens is incredible. Nikon and probably Tokina will have the best build, and which ever you get cheaper buy. If you are using it for more than just macro, get an AF version. But if you working just in macro AF isn't totally necessary as at 1:1 and 1:2 it is best to manually focus. For convenience get a lens that goes all the way to 1:1, some older lenses just go to 1:2 and need extension tube, if you buy new that is not an issue, buying used it is. Tom >> What about the Sigma 105 F1.4? How do the Nikkors and Tamron/Sigma >> compare in price? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom And of course an old manual 50mm with tubes does a pretty fair job at a rockbottom price. |
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.