 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / October 2003Which Macro lense for all?
Dear naturalists, I think it is time to get rid of my Nikon Macro lense (60/f2.8), since I more often need a " longer lense " to have a more smooth background and to be able to photograph insects and such. At present I am mostly using my Micro Nikkor 60/f2.8 combined with a 2x converter, to gain the needed effects as good as possible. However, I am still not quiete clear which new lense would be the most convenient one for my purposes. The alternatives I do see right now are: - Mikro Nikkor 200/f4.0 - Mikro Nikkor 105/f2.8 (can be combined with a 2x converter as well) - 80-200/2.8 with an attached macro lense (such a 5T or 6T), in addition to my current 60's lense) (- Micro Nikkor AF 70-180/f4.5-5.6 - however it is seldomly available for a good price) Since I do not want to have much more equipment in my backpack, it is already pretty full, I need an " optimal " compromise. Any helpful advice is very welcome. Greets from Germany Thomas A 60mm Nikon micro lens is mostly what Ed Ross has used for decades to produce the best large collection of macro photos of insects in nature ever made. The difference between Ed, a PhD entomologist and lifelong world traveler, and most casual nature photographers is that he knows the animals. Knowing the subjects, and secondarily having a superb strobe technique, are the extra elements in getting the best shots. Carl May/BPS Carl May > Dear naturalists, > > I think it is time to get rid of my Nikon Macro lense (60/f2.8), the word is spelled 'lens.' > since I more often need a " longer lense " to have a more smooth > background and to be able to photograph insects and such. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Thomas Sure is nice to see that Michael is a language expert. We need one of those here. If you would take your obviously American size 11's out of your southern regions you would know that "lense" is the common spelling for that item on the other side of the small pond. If you would have looked to the bottom of his post you would have seen that he signed from Germany. Now Micheal, put your red pen down and play nice with the rest of the children here. -- Scott Wuerch wuerchs@worldnet.att.net Computer problems..have you checked the loose nut directly in front of the keyboard? > > I think it is time to get rid of my Nikon Macro lense (60/f2.8), > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Thomas > Sure is nice to see that Michael is a language expert. We need one of those here. > > If you would take your obviously American size 11's out of your southern regions you would know that "lense" is the > common spelling for that item on the other side of the small pond. If you would have looked to the bottom of his > post you would have seen that he signed from Germany. <large snip> Come on, in english the word is lens. And that's true for UK dialects as well as for american. The german word is linse, singular, linsen, plural. Can't think of an english word that forms the plural by just adding an 'n'. Yes, I know, ox, oxen is close. But there's also ax (or axe), axes, not axen. That said, we should be delighted that the rest of the world is kind enough to try to communicate with us in our language. Convenient to be a native speaker of the current lingua franca, eh? Beats having to learn 7, possibly 9 if Belgium is included, languages for a 7 nation tour of europe. And now to address the question. Thomas, I use manual focus Nikon gear, have all three AIS MicroNikkors, use the 105/2.8 most, rarely use the 200/4. Don't need the working distance that badly, and with the 200 I'm often too far from the subject for easy use of flash. This MAY change when I run out of KM and am forced to use a faster color transparency film. Cheers, Dan > Come on, in english the word is lens. And that's true for UK > dialects as well as for american. The german word is linse, > singular, linsen, plural. Can't think of an english word that > forms the plural by just adding an 'n'. Well, since you like nitpicking the guy for what was probably a typo, let me remind you that the words "american", "german" and "english" all need to be capitalized, if you really care about writing in good English (including the bastardized version we speak here in the US.) I believe that would be considered an even greater error in FIRST grade... > That said, we should be delighted that the rest of the world is kind > enough to try to communicate with us in our language. Convenient to > be a native speaker of the current lingua franca, eh? Beats having to > learn 7, possibly 9 if Belgium is included, languages for a 7 nation > tour of europe. 9? Does it mean you have to learn French and Dutch TWICE? > > That said, we should be delighted that the rest of the world is kind > > enough to try to communicate with us in our language. Convenient to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 9? Does it mean you have to learn French and Dutch TWICE? I don't think Flemish is exactly the same as Dutch??? Anyway, come to the sunny UK, and as well as all the accents and dialects, many non-intercomprehensible, (Lonely Planet's "British" Phrasebook is very useful, despite there being no such language!) you can try Irish Gaelic (pronounced Gaylick) Scottish Gaelic (pronounced Gahlick) and Welsh. I believe Cornish isn't spoken any more. Though Urdu is our most common language after English. Liz  SignatureVirtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk Kenya; Tanzania; India; Seychelles New Aug '03: Namibia "I speak of Africa and golden joys" >> 9? Does it mean you have to learn French and Dutch TWICE? > > I don't think Flemish is exactly the same as Dutch??? No, but it's VERY similar and if you know Dutch, you can communicate very well in Flemish Belgium (actually most people there speak a pretty decent English, so the entire argument is basically moot...:-) ) > Anyway, come to the sunny UK, and as well as all the accents and > dialects, many non-intercomprehensible, (Lonely Planet's "British" > Phrasebook is very useful, despite there being no such language!) > you can try Irish Gaelic (pronounced Gaylick) Scottish Gaelic > (pronounced Gahlick) and Welsh. I believe Cornish isn't spoken > any more. I live in southern California, I don't think there is a place in the world with more accents and languages spoken daily... ;-) BTW, I like the UK (but...sunny? For how many days in a year?), particularly Scotland, but I could never live there: too cold, too humid, too cloudy, too depressing, except maybe for a month in a year... I think the most uncomprehensible British accent is Cockney, although you can do a quick imitation by just never pronuncing the letter H...:-) I remember when the first Monthy Python movie came out, with... SUBTITLES!! > I think the most uncomprehensible British > accent is Cockney, although you can do a quick imitation by > just never pronuncing the letter H...:-) And the Dick Van Dyke award for the worst imitation of a Cockney accent goes to . . . . -- The next new technology from Microsoft . . . . . . NNBTGNDHI: Not Necessary, But The Guy Next Door Has It > And the Dick Van Dyke award for the worst imitation of a Cockney accent goes > to . . . . Dick Van Dyke! Cm'on up Dick and collect your award. The award will be presented by the Kray brothers.... -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Hey Guys (and Gals)! Is this a photo group or a language group? Why waste so much time and bandwidth on dissecting somebody for using an unusual but not unaccepted spelling of a word?! My penny's worth. SignatureJudit Fabian University of Vermont (802)656-9722 Judit.Fabian@uvm.edu " "Judit Fabian" <Judit.Fabian@uvm.edu> > Hey Guys (and Gals)! Hey, like groovy, man (er, chick). > Is this a photo group or a language group? "Double your pleasure, double your fun. It's two groups, two groups, two groups in one!" > Why waste so much time and bandwidth on dissecting somebody Shouldn't your post be in sci.med.autopsy? > for using an unusual but not unaccepted spelling of a word?! It _is_ a photographic word, n'est pas? Where should the discussion take place: rec.photo.etymology? > My penny's worth. With inflation and stockholder pressure for obscene profit it's now $10.79 + tax (7 cent deposit in ME, VT and MI). -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. On 9/20/03 10:36 PM, in article 2fd2ff8c.0309202036.6e1a3f95@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: > the word is spelled 'lens.' Oh, get a grip > On 9/20/03 10:36 PM, in article > 2fd2ff8c.0309202036.6e1a3f95@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" > <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > the word is spelled 'lens.' > Oh, get a grip That's pelled 'Griffe'. >> I think it is time to get rid of my Nikon Macro lense (60/f2.8), > the word is spelled 'lens.' www.webster.com: One entry found for lens. Main Entry: lens Variant(s): also lense /'lenz/ Function: noun Etymology: New Latin lent-, lens, from Latin, lentil; from its shape Date: 1693 1 a : a piece of transparent material (as glass) that has two opposite regular surfaces either both curved or one curved and the *plonk* Hi Thomas Having just upgraded my micro equipment I have this advices. If your main subject are insects the 200/4 would be a great but expensive choice - it?s very sharp and made to shoot insects. 80-200 with a 5T or 6T is imo not the best choice imhop since the subject to film distance would be rather short - which is bad when we talk about insects - moreover the edges will become rather soft. The 70-180 do not go "one to one" - only 1:1.32. But it?s quit flexible though - and sharp - a good but expensive choice. The good thing about micro lenses in the 200mm range is imho also the bad thing - the narrow angle makes it dificult to include som background in order to gain some depht. For "micro" I often use micro 55/3,5, 24/2,8, 28/2,8 or 50/1,8 - and yesterday I upgraded my equipment with the pk11a, pk12 and pk13 - I can?t wait to go shooting this weekend :) Kim Jeppesen Denmark Nature- and microphoto: http://www.naturfotografi.dk > Dear naturalists, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Thomas |
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
|
©2008 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.