- This topic is empty.
Macro Lens for Nikon D300
-
Hi Gang,
As I’m a bit too old for Santa I’ve taken it upon myself to get some lenses to fill my Christmas stocking. I am thinking about getting a macro lens, but I’m not sure what the advantages are of the focal length – what can a 105mm lens do that an 85mm or 60mm can’t, and vice versa? Am I correct in thinking that it can chieve a 1:1 focus at a distance further away? What do people use and what works best for them? What have they tried and hated?
Happy Christmas!
Will
Hi Willem, I have a Sigma 70mm macro which is a good lens, nice and sharp but I have to get
right up close to the subject, ok for flowers and inanimate objects but not so good for insects
etc. I have heard good things about 105mm though.So it lets me get further away? Ok, I think tht’s what I wnt it to do. Is there anything that the shorter focal lengths do better or are more useful for, or are they just cheaper?
Hi Will,
Think your intended use will determine the focal length that suits, generally 50/ 60mm is suitable for flowers/ still life, with 200mm the preferred length by insect photographers. 100mm is usually the best compromise for most people. The main thing here is working distance. Most lenses will go to 1:1 magnification, however a longer focal length will allow you more working distance to your subject, but at the expense of not being able to hand-hold the lens as much.
Bear in mind, all the above relates to your macro requirements. If you’re looking for a flexible macro lens to pull double-duty for other purposes, you need to consider these needs in your choice of focal length also.
For the record, I have a Tokina 100mm macro lens, which has produced some stunning images for me, but because of the focal length and my preference for shorter focal lengths, I don’t use it very often.
I’ve always wondered about the Tokina 35m macro as a general do everything lens, that will let you get as close as you want to your subject. The Sigma 70mm has also intrigued me as a good compromise between a macro and portrait lens, as I generally favour a 100mm (35mm equivalent) for general portraits. Your mileage may vary, and I think a lot depends on your intended use for the lens, as either a pure macro lens, or as a flexible hybrid in your arsenal,
Damien
Thanks guys, that’s a big help.
Damien, I have a 35mm macro on my Olympus E-400 and I find I have to get so close to things I find it difficult to light them properly. I don’t want the lens for any particular macro subject. I think the 105mm Nikon macro may be a good all-rounder place to start. It’ll give me a much bigger space to light the subject. It sounds like it’s really popular for portraits too, so yeah, it’d be nice and flexible. I’ll do some more pondering and review-reading before i text Santa my order! I’m hoping he does a new-year discount…I have the Nikon 105mm VR lens and it’s great.
I mainly got it for insects but it’s a useful focal length for streets stuff sometimes. I like it for walking around a flea market for example – you can take pictures of people admiring items on the stalls and then get in close for a picture of a weird looking miniature garden gnome perhaps.
Even though it’s a prime lens I sometimes find myself imagining it’s a zoom for the reason I mentioned above – it’s huge range of focusing distances mean you can get a great variety of perspectives, presuming you’re willing to zoom with your feet a little.
People sometimes claim the VR isn’t useful for macro work but it is, of course. It’s doesn’t cut out vibrations as much as it will at further focusing distances but it must help somewhat.
I also find this lens gives great rendition of colours, I like using it at night too. I can sometimes get sharp shots at 1/10 of a second providing I haven’t had too many beers. :)
The focus is nice and snappy too, but generally useless at around 1:1 reproduction ratio as all macro lenses will be.
The downsides of this lens are it’s weight – it’s pretty damn heavy with the VR technology and all that jazz. It also has no aperture ring which is a minus for me and anyone else with a manual film camera.
With further regard to the vaious focal lengths – I would like a wider macro at some stage. 60mm or so would be nice for details of objects but including a bit more of the surroundings. A macro at 35mm with 1:1 repro ratio would be interesting too.
105mm is okay for insects but a bit short sometimes. I’d like 200mm for this ideally. If the invertebrates are small enough the won’t give a crap that you’re there but bees, flys and wasps most certainly will.
You seem to be mentioning Olympus and Nikon…what are you actually using? edit – never mind. I read the topic title again. Whatcha doing messing about with Olympus and Nikon? Make up your mind! :)
Hope that’s of some use anyway,
Alan
p.s. I’ve asked Santa for a 200-400mm Nikon VR, Leica M9 and D3x…fingers crossed. :D
Thanks Alan, that’s a brilliant synopsis.
Why is it that the 105mm macro is considered so good for portraits? It seems a lot of people use it for that and not macro.
The history of my dual use? I bought the E-400 as my first SLR based on very little research, to see if I liked SLR photography. I found it a good camera and the accessories are far cheaper than Nikon but I wanted something a bit more flexible with off-camera flash so I read up a lot and got a D300. The Oly is still really useful for travel and holidays and slinging into a rucksack when I go camping. The biggest thing I hate about it is the fact that it shipped with the manual on a CD-ROM which is criminal – pretty hard to lug about a laptop in case you want to check the damn manual!
You’re welcome Willem, glad to be of assistance.
I guess that the 105mm is considered good for portraits as this is a good focal length for portraits. Most people like something in that range for head and shoulders style shots from what I gather.
I’ve heard people say it’s too sharp for portraits as it renders all details clearly. You also can’t shoot at f/2.8 at closer distances than about 8 metres (I could be out here, I haven’t got the lens to hand). For portrait distances you’ll probably be shooting around f/3.3 or so. Narrower depth of field can be achieved with different lenses.
I’d prefer my 85mm f/1.8 for portraits.
Is that because F/2.8 provides too shallow a depth of field? I haven’t done any portrait work but I’d like to. I’m intrigued that so many people use this macro lens for portraits. I’ll give it a go!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
