 |
 | 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 2007How to pick a macro lens?
I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of crokus flowers in my front lawn (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10625820@N00/444921783/) and couldn't get in close enough really get the detail in the inside of the flower. I assume a macro lens will solve that problem. What I don't understand about macros is what difference the focal length makes in a close-up lens. Nikon makes 60mm f/2.8, a 105 f/2.8, and a 200mm f/4. All can focus in close enough to give you 1:1. As a practical matter, the 200 is out of sight price-wise, so it's really down to the 60 vs. 105, but for the sake of argument, let's assume all three were in the running. With any of the focal lengths, I'm going to be in so close that the perspective differences will probably not matter. I'm also probably going to be stopped way down with any of them to get some workable depth of field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? Roy, I think the 200mm does not actually give you 1:1. I have both the 60mm and the 105. If I had to choose just one, it would be the 105. It gives you a more comfortable working distance and is less likely to disturb small critters. The advantage of the 60 is that it is considerably smaller and lighter. >> I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of >> crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > disturb small critters. The advantage of the 60 is that it is > considerably smaller and lighter. Yes, the 200 does give you 1:1 and with the greater working distance it affords you, there is adequate room for positioning reflectors or flash heads for appropriate lighting. Bob >>> I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some >>> pictures of crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > flash heads for appropriate lighting. > Bob Yes, but it also flattens the perspective. There is no one perfect, one size fits all, lens or camera. The 60, the 105 and the 200 all have their place. I would suggest the 105 without knowing more about the OP's needs. BTW does that 200 require and extension to get to 1:1 ??  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit >>>> I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some >>>> pictures of crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > place. I would suggest the 105 without knowing more about the OP's needs. > BTW does that 200 require and extension to get to 1:1 ?? Joe, The manual 200 f4 micro goes to 1:2 without extension. The 200 f4 AF-D goes to 1:1 without any extension needed. Hope this helps, Dave >>>>> I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some >>>>> pictures of crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > The manual 200 f4 micro goes to 1:2 without extension. The 200 f4 AF-D > goes to 1:1 without any extension needed. That makes sense. > Hope this helps, > Dave SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > >>>>> I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some > >>>>> pictures of crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Dia 's Muire duit Depth of field is dependent on magnification so at 1:1 all lenses have the same depth of field, same at 1:2, same at 1:20. The higher the mag the less depth of field, which is why telephoto shots have less DOF than WA photos. DOF is also how you define your circle of confusion etc too. I'll leave this to some tof the technical folk on this newsgroup, just something that was drilled into my head at college. Tom > Depth of field is dependent on magnification so at 1:1 all lenses have > the same depth of field, same at 1:2, same at 1:20. The higher the mag > the less depth of field, which is why telephoto shots have less DOF > than WA photos. DOF is also how you define your circle of confusion > etc too. I'll leave this to some tof the technical folk on this > newsgroup, just something that was drilled into my head at college. OK that's a darn good simple explanation, thanks for that! But... the focal length changes the proportion of things and I'd think this must have some effect on the 'apparent' DOF. Take for example a butterfly viewed so that one wing is closer, assume you've got enough DOF to get both wings in focus... the wider lens is going to make the front wing look larger, the back wing smaller so the exaggerated perspective will make it perhaps more dramatic, more dynamic, more three dimensional. I think perhaps the long FL flattened image is going to seem more 'easy' and the exaggerated wide angle view is going to look like it was more difficult to get such a deep view in focus. Will one of them require a larger aperture for a given shutter speed? I'm guessing no, it must be the same if this simple rule is correct. The wide angle version is going to have to be taken at a closer distance and it will feel more like you are really up close and intimate, the longer FL version may feel more detatched like it was just cheating and not as exciting. To emphasize this point, instead of a butterfly, take the example of a rattlesnake. The wide angle view is going to have a huge head and fangs, the tail would be tiny making the snake look enormous where the telephoto version will look more like a technical illustration all proportional and scientific... less emotional impact. Of course you can interpret the effect differently for various subjects but do you think I've got the general idea here? The point is (I think) that the wide angle view will have more apparent DOF because the subject will look more three dimensional. I'm still not certain that the same aperture & shutter speed would produce the same depth of field. PS here's a set of closeups I did the other day with my 105/2.8 VR plus a 2x teleconverter... I set up that way knowing there is a rare butterfly in this location and I did get some good shots of them... they are very skittish so there's no way I could have caught them with a shorter lens: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/Peninsula/San-Bruno -Mtn/2007-04-03&PG=2&PIC=7> >I'm still not certain that the same aperture & shutter speed would >produce the same depth of field. I don't blame you. Shutter speed has no effect on DOF. It's aperture and magnification that control DOF. KS >>I'm still not certain that the same aperture & shutter speed would >>produce the same depth of field. > > I don't blame you. Shutter speed has no effect on DOF. It's aperture > and magnification that control DOF. OK, yes, shutter speed isn't directly related. Are you sure DOF is the same at a given magnification and aperture regardless of focal length though? And if shutter speed varies that's an important practical consideration for non-stationary subjects. >>> I'm still not certain that the same aperture & shutter speed would >>> produce the same depth of field. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > though? And if shutter speed varies that's an important practical > consideration for non-stationary subjects. Yes, that is a given. What may make it seem otherwise is the perspective change with different focal length lenses. A longer lens "compresses" perspective and it looks like there is less DOF. SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro > work? Nikon states that their 60mm is optimized for flat field (like postage stamps and coins). People often go up to the 105mm when they are photographing skittish, live things (like insects). The 200mm would give you even greater working distance. I'm sure others will point out more criteria for you. Oh yes, often with the 60mm lens you are working close enough that you have to be careful about casting shadows on your subject... > With any of the focal lengths, I'm going to be in so close that the > perspective differences will probably not matter. No, that's not true, if you think about it. The perspective differences with objects like flowers will be quite significant. > I'm also probably going to be stopped way down with any of them to > get some workable depth of field, so the maximum aperture is > probably not an issue either. Given all that, what would make you > pick one focal length over another for macro work? It depends. If you might be doing repro work, as I do, the telephoto lens would in some cases require a long distance between object and camera. This can be a real nuisance, if, for example, your copy stand/tripod/whatever isn't big enough. Andrew. > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? The field of view can make a difference. I use a +2 diopter closeup lens on my 28mm f/2 lens which already has CRC (close range correction) and it can give a totally different perspective like showing the surrounding flowers around a butterfly, and wider angles do give more DOF although at extreme close range that matters less. Also the max aperture matters because it gives a brighter viewfinder for easier focusing. Also worth noting: my 105 micro works great with a 2x teleconverter... great for butterfly & bee chasing. I've also used the 2x TC and +2 diopter on my 70-200 for getting an extremely soft background though the sharpness does get compromised the effect can be stunning: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-g arden/more&PG=1&PIC=2> >... and wider angles do give more DOF... A common misconception. It's true that wide angle gives you more DOF when you keep the distance to the subject the same. But when you keep the magnification the same (read: framing is the same), then wide and tele lenses give the same DOF (all at equal aperture). ... at least to a first approximation. There are details regarding pupil magnification of particular lenses that can skew those results, but to the extent that this applies, I think that it favors more DOF for tele lenses (again, for equivalent framing). KS >>... and wider angles do give more DOF... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but to the extent that this applies, I think that it favors more DOF > for tele lenses (again, for equivalent framing). You are probably correct for high magnification, I think my idea might have a bit of validity for moderate closeups such as a butterfly shot where it's easier to get more of the nearby flowers in the frame and perhaps more in focus... maybe not more in focus. If you try to make an equivalent field of view with a longer lens to include those same adjacent flowers, you'd step back away and the butterfly would get smaller, in that case yes the butterfly would have greater depth of field. With a wide angle macro, the 'perspective distortion of the butterfly's wings will increase so the closest & furthest wings will appear further apart and that might make it harder to get both in focus. Comments welcome on my theories... better yet, I should try some tests. >>>... and wider angles do give more DOF... >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Comments welcome on my theories... better yet, I should try some tests. Perspective changes with different focal lengths, and that makes it hard to do comparisons. Mathematically, though, the DOF stays the same for the same magnification, whether it is high or low or in between. Yeah, tests would be revealing. KS > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? Once you pick focal length, and if price is a consideration, then look at third party alternatives. Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron make some excellent macro lenses. Sigma 75, 105, 150, and 180mm Tamron 90mm, Tokina 105mm. New Nikkor 105 has VR and AFs - useful when using lens as a telephoto, but of no use at macro distances. There are reviews of most of those at Photozone.de on a D200 body. >I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of >crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all >that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? I apologise for contradicting you, but focal length makes a significant difference to perspective because of the significantly different working distances each focal length will demand of you. You should choose the focal length based on your preferred working distance, then everything else will follow. If you have a 80-200mm or 70-300mm zoom lens you should be able to get a good handle on which focal length will suit you best, even if it won't focus close enough to make macro shots (you could always try it with an extension tube). If a 90mm would suit your working distance, then I would strongly recommend the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, which is also a fine portrait lens, with a beautifully soft rendering of out of focus highlights. It is also much cheaper than the nearest Nikon equivalent, the 105mm, which has a harsh rendering of the out of focus elements of the shot. If 150mm would suit you better, the Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM is a fine lens. I would not recommnd this lens to Canon users, owing to Sigma's seemingly chronic problems with future compatabiity with Canon DSLRs, but issues with Nikon DSLRs are minimal. The Sigma is another lens that works well as a portrait lens, with pleasantly smooth background rendition, but you might find the focal length, equivalent to 225mm on a 35mm film SLR, a little long for traditional head and shoulders portraiture. But for facial shots, and some environmental portraiture, it should work well. > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > vs. 105, but for the sake of argument, let's assume all three were in the > running. Using different focal length for the same magnification changes the perspective and the working distance (of course one determines the other). > With any of the focal lengths, I'm going to be in so close that the > perspective differences will probably not matter. I'm also probably going > to be stopped way down with any of them to get some workable depth of > field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? No the perspective differences do matter (think about it: you'll be at a different distance ). Also the max aperture matters because it is the aperture at which you view (faster allows easier composition etc); note that most macros change focal length and max aperture as you focus closer. I suggest you pick a focal length (based on the working distance you feel comfortable with) and then go from there. I would also suggest you consider the rendering of out-of-focus areas of each lens (that is, look at actual photos; these things usually aren't mentioned in reviews, but may be important for the sort of thing you want to do with the lens). As an example, I have a Tamron 90mm macro, which is very good as a macro and also as a portrait lens (nice out of focus areas). The only drawback is that, at max magnification, the distance from the front of the lens to the subject is quite small (because the lens extends significantly). After more than 15 years of photography, I realised recently that I'd never actually shot a flower; so I photographed some a couple of days ago, and here is an example: http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/76341391 I suppose with practice one can get better results. > After more than 15 years of photography, I realised recently that I'd > never actually shot a flower; so I photographed some a couple of days > ago, and here is an example: http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/76341391 Man, does that make me feel unworthy. > achilleaslazari...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > After more than 15 years of photography, I realised recently that I'd > > never actually shot a flower; so I photographed some a couple of days > > ago, and here is an example:http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/76341391 > > Man, does that make me feel unworthy. Thanks, I guess. But in this case, it is simply a matter of selecting the right lens, camera-subject distance, and angle. Hardly high art... > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures > of crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > either. Given all that, what would make you pick one focal length > over another for macro work? Really gets down to how much subject distance you want/need. For document pages you probably want to go shorter--you don't want to have to stand on a ladder to shoot them. For rattlesnakes you probably want longer, long enough to be outside of striking range anyway. For flat subjects the perspective doesn't matter much, for those with depth it can. With a short lens and a big flower you might actually be inside the flower to image some of the deeper details at 1:1. Before you spend a lot of money on a macro lens you might want to get a set of extension tubes--the full set of Nikon brand tubes is about $250 or you can get a Kenko set for about 170, but you may not need the full set. If you have a camera store that stocks them go by and give them a try and see if you need them all or just one. Nice thing about extension tubes is that they work with just about any lens. Downside is that you don't the flatness of field and corner-to-corner sharpness that is characteristic of the best macros. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? Go for the 105.. I own the older lenses, a 55mm F3.5 Micro-P and the 105 F4 Macro. Both of these are superb, but the working distance of the 105 (ie the distance between the front of the lens and the subject) is worht its weight in gold. The longer the focal length the greater the distance between the front of the lens and the subject to get the equivalent reporduction ratio. If I use my 55mm with the extension ring to get 1:1, the front of the lens is about an inch from the subject.. lighting is real issue. Its double that for the 105, but that extra inch is wonderful SignatureJim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo > I'm thinking of a macro lens for my D200. I was taking some pictures of > crokus flowers in my front lawn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > field, so the maximum aperture is probably not an issue either. Given all > that, what would make you pick one focal length over another for macro work? The advantage of the longer focal lengths is more "standoff" range. So for some subjects you get more light (less shadow, rather) on subject and you're less likely to disturb the subject (bugs, etc). Perspective does not change for a given distance from the subject, but the "flattening" effect will if you shoot a 50mm and a 100mm for 1:1. This is properly a "perspective" change as the FP has moved. With cropped sensor cameras one might be tempted to the shorter FL's (50/60mm) but you will lose the advantages above. a 1:1 macro (as I'm sure you understand) reproduces the same dimensions on the sensor as the actual dimensions of the subject (when shot at 1:1). The distance of the focal plane to the subject is unchanged, however. That is why a moderate macro (90, 100, 105) does a pretty good job in many situations. Having said that, a friend has a Sigma 180 macro (1:1 and full frame) that does a magnificent job. Further, the classic DOF calculation does not work. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#Close-up_2 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. |
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.