 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ed Hutchinson
|
Hi there I have decided I am in need of a macro lens, I have been looking at the nikor 60 mm 2.8d or the tokina 100mm 2.8 any thoughts or comments would be a big help  Ihave read some reviews but put more value on info here as you are all out there doing not sitting in a cubical somewhere dark lolthanks Ed |
|||||||||
Robert
|
With Close Up lenses it's very important to identify what you are likely to photograph. Do you have interests which will suggest a subject, for example stamp or coin collecting, an interest in plants, insects or fungi? Many lenses can be used close up, either by using screw on close up lenses, which is a very good method, or extension tubes. For example I quite often use my 300mm f2.8 lens with an extension tube to capture small things which are out of range of shorter lenses. As for dedicated close up lenses the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 Micro is a good lens but AF is not a ideal for close up photography. Because the depth of focus is so small you need to focus manually in order to get the critical parts of the subject sharp. AF lenses are not as easy or nice to use manually. The 60 Micro also has a little trick up it's sleeve, it's actually a short zoom or varifocal lens. It's focal length varies from about 40mm at it's closest focus to 60mm at infinity. That is how it manages to achieve 1:1 magnification. That also applies to the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 Micro. There are several good close up lenses in the 90-150mm range, Tamron have a very good name with this class of lens. Personally I have an old Nikkor 55mm 2.8 MF Micro which I use for most of my flower images. If I need longer I use extension tubes with a suitable standard lens. I can't speak for the Tokina, having no experience with that lens, but most 2.8 lenses tend to be good... |
|||||||||
jk
|
I have the Nikon 60mm and 105mm macro lenses plus the Sigma 150mm macro. All work reall well but it depends on the subject as to which is best to use. The Sigma 150mm is a very nice portrait lens as well. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I've had a go with the Sigma 150mm and was impressed with it and for me with a sigma lens that takes some doing. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Iain wrote:I've had a go with the Sigma 150mm and was impressed with it and for me with a sigma lens that takes some doing. Yes and I remember why!  |
|||||||||
whiteiris
|
All these lenses are FX lenses so if you use them on a DX camera remember their equivalent focal lengths with by multiplied by 1.5. I say this because, for me, the 60mm Nikon on a DX body is ideal for most situations. But as others have said before, if you want to shoot bugs, getting a bit further away (so as not to spook them) may recommend the longer Nikon or indeed the Sigma mentioned. All good lenses. |
|||||||||
blackfox
|
at present i,m having a more than fair degree of success using the 300mm-f4afs and a 1.7E11 t/c this is giving me a 500mm combo that on my D7000 gives a useable close up as opposed to outright macro lens that focuses down to one and a half metres . i,m finding it very good on butterflies and larger insects .i did dabble with proper macro last year but i couldn't get into the dragonflies eyes type of pictures .so this combo suits my style of photography |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Wow thanks ever soooooo much, I have trouble going to anything but nikon. that said I have had some very good sigma items back in the film days. price is going to play an important part here, i had not thought about the 105 sigma I will look at it at this point I am into flowers texture and colors are awesome thanks again for taking the time to answer as always you are the best. Ed |
|||||||||
Doug
|
Sigma make some good lenses, a clue is their second-hand value, but watch out since there are occasionally duds floating around |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Thanks Doug for the reminder I had heard that before I am now thinking of staying with a known item NIKON!!!!!!!!!!I will let you all know what transpires. thank you all Ed |
|||||||||
Doug
|
Before you decide to jump either way have a read of the article at the following link Lens Variation:LINK Roger Cicala |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
I like that, sharpness is a fuzzy concept! a subject to contemplate along with several other unfathomable ones LOL I am seriously drifting towards a nikon 60mm 2.8 but one never knows where one might end up when drifting, it is one of the things I do well. be well Ed |
|||||||||
Robert
|
For anybody with even a slight interest in close up photography this is wonderful reading. Michael Erlewine is an expert on the art of making close up images with very little fuzz, or bokeh as it is more properly known, by using the technique known as Focus Stacking. Michael Erlewine's writing style is individual, and may not please everybody but the content is wonderful and well worth the effort to download and read. A list of Michael Erlewine's publications can be found and downloaded in PDF form for free at: http://www.macrostop.com Just hit the 'Download' button for each PDF you want to view. Set aside time to read! Michael is highly respected and these PDF's are a wonderful resource. The macro bit is a pity because by his own admission Michael's main interest is in close up photography, not macro. Macro photography properly means creating images where the image on the film or sensor in our case, is greater than 1:1. That is the image on the sensor is larger than the subject. Macro is a word which is heavily misused to mean close up photography, made worse by some lens makers using the term to describe lenses which can take close up images. Very few lenses are true macro lenses which enable greater than 1:1 without further attachments like a bellows or extension tubes. This is particularly irksome with zoom lenses which while they can be very handy to get close up to the subject, they don't generally respond well to being put on extension tubes! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrophotography |
|||||||||
jk
|
Doug wrote:Before you decide to jump either way have a read of the article at the following link I think this is excellent comment. We need to remember that while lenses are manufactured in a factory process the products are not identical but similar. |
|||||||||
whiteiris
|
jk wrote: Doug wrote:There is a tolerance range of 'acceptability' that Nikon publish on all their lenses. I recall taking my 50mm 1.4 into ACS and asking them to 'check the sharpness'. When told it was OK and I pressed them further, they offered to swop my lens for theirs...the one they use for calibration ....as mine was sharper! I declined the offer. |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
This may be a dumb question Eric, but how did ACS check the sharpness of the lens? What type of testing did they use if you were privy to such information. |
|||||||||
whiteiris
|
Squarerigger wrote:This may be a dumb question Eric, but how did ACS check the sharpness of the lens? What type of testing did they use if you were privy to such information. Not absolutely sure as I know they use manual and digital methods. But I would have thought using standard Modulation Transfer function charts. Interestingly, I need to ask them about Chromatic aberration. I am convinced one of my lenses is worse than when I bought it.. with more colour fringing. I haven't knocked it so I don't know if CA can drift?? |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
whiteiris wrote:Squarerigger wrote: Thanks Whiteiris, aka Eric, I took the term modulation transfer function and went looking on the internet for some education. I found several sites which were helpful with one in particular http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html.webloc. Always learning. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Slightly interestingly there is a way to check image sharpness in Photoshop. If you look at a histogram of a clean sharp test card black and white image the histogram should show a sharply defined absolutely perfectly vertical edge to the difference between the black and the white portions of the image. If the lines on an image of a test card are blurred then that blur will be a graduated grey. If there is any graduated grey in an image it will show up on the histogram. There is also a numerical display which gives a definitive reading. I just forget how that is done, will try to remember to check it out. It's on a tiny icon on the Histo panel I think. By selecting portions of the image at say corners, edge and centre, the differences can be assessed. |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Iam back I am sorry i did not mention that both my cameras are dx bodies. another find is the 90mm 2.8 tamron looks interesting, as i dont go tramping through the bush and boonies anymore and i take very good care of my equipment. thanks Ed |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I understand that is a very good lens Ed. I think there are some members here who have that lens. |
|||||||||
Constable
|
Sorry, came to this thread late. The sigma 150 and 180macro are very good optically. The 180 has (at least in my example) crap build quality.. after two years (and I suppose some 30'000 shots to be fair) the polymer coating is peeling off. I fully agree this is a probably consequence of a combination of sun protection and insect repellant, but nevertheless! The new sigma 180 2.8 looks interesting, but is still fantasy-ware. The Nikon 105 is a trusty favourite ... you cannot go wrong with it but I find the results lack a little something (probably skill on my part). I still like the zeiss 100 if you can live with MF (and for macro it is a fact of life). This is with the Sigma 180, f9, 1/640 on the D4 and heavily cropped. Ed Attachment: 219926.jpg (Downloaded 97 times) |
|||||||||
whiteiris
|
I was underwhelmed with the 105 contrast and prefer the humble 60mm. Constable wrote: Sorry, came to this thread late. |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
WOW!!!!!! very nice!!!! someone got lunch!!!!!!! I agree those lenses are great but at the moment i must consider price, that is why i was looking at the tamron 90mm 2.8 new it is the same price as a used nikor 60 mm 2.8 . i still favor Nikon but one must be led by the money or lack thereof LOL Ed  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Nice picture Ed. I am very happy with my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro but I tend to use it as a prime lens for close head portraits rather than macro. For ultra sharpness I find that the Nikon 105 AFD that I have is very very good. I need to dig out the praying mantis shots I took. |
|||||||||
Doug
|
Ed Hutchinson wrote:Iam back The Tamron is very well regarded. I sold lots of them with no complaints |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Well I wont be buying a lens soon as the war department just showed me the medical bills ooooooh ouch anyway i will be trying to sell some of my ham radio gear to cover the cost, photography is more important to me now I have a copy of capture NX if any one would like to try it a donation to the forum and i will send it for cost of postage no return required be well Ed  |
|||||||||
xd40c
|
I use the 60 MM Micro lense also.. What to say...well I like it. It is not VR, so a tripod is a must. Images are sharp, clear and excellent color. Off camera flash is also a requirement for extreme close ups (the lense will create a shadow from on camera flash). |
|||||||||
xd40c
|
Ed Hutchinson wrote: WOW!!!!!! very nice!!!! someone got lunch!!!!!!! A question I frequently ask (not necesarily about camera equipment): who will know, or care, how much you paid for this lense next year?? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
xd40c wrote: Ed Hutchinson wrote:The wife - if she gets to hear about it.WOW!!!!!! very nice!!!! someone got lunch!!!!!!!  But you raise an interesting point. Of course we need to have the cash to buy equipmet in the first place. And our budgets all vary. But I have long been a believer in 'yesterdays money'. Once its spent...its gone. If the item is one that will appreciate, then it doesnt matter. But most digital equipment depreciates faster than a rat down a drainpipe. So I have always advocated recycling equipment you dont need as soon as possible. For me, hanging onto camera bodies like the film days doesnt work. Sure you get a big hit when you sell it...but that came the moment you carried it out of the store. Its hard to suppress the feeling that the buyer is mugging you. Well that maybe true to an extent when its a buyers market. BUT I feel I am mugging myself leaving redundant equipment on the shelf until its worthless. Selling, at least, part funds the next acquisition (softens he pain). I also feel equipment can get in the way of taking photographs. Having fewer items of equipment at your disposable fattens the wallet and sharpens the eye. ....and I have wandered off topic at a tangent.   :wtf:I need a holiday. |
|||||||||
xd40c
|
Can't argue that electronics gear will depreciate as fast as anything. What to do? Deprive yourself because it won't be worth anything is few months? You can see where that logic would lead. At $500 a shot, the 60 mm Micro is not inexpensive. But if it will give years of service, despite any depreciation, than what is the issue? Heck, I still use a DVD player that we paid GOOD money for 10 years back. It's worthless now. A new one now would cost $100, and not be worth $10 once you leave the store. Of course this is assuming you do have the disposable income for such an outlay. I can't recommend you spend the rent money a camera lense. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Ed- You might also consider a used or reconditioned lens. I have tried all the focal lengths and despite all the arguments for one over another, I find that I use the Nikon 105 about 90% of the time I use macros. Tom |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Hi ok so i have been recycling amateur radio gear, to increase the pot so to speak. i have been looking at the tokina 2.8 but read somewhere that it has no threads for a filter, any comments? the other lens i am looking at is the tamron 60mm f2. i like the fact that it is an internal focus and its faster ed PS duh!!! i just looked at an enlargement of the tokina on krs review IT HAS THREADS!!!!!!!!! i think i need a break, i am going to grab the cameras and get out of here LOL me again |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Hi Tom yes i have been looking at used on flebay, but i tend to run away, when they mention dust, so far i have picked up a 70-210 af-d 3.5-5.6 it looks like it just came out of the box, very nice, also a 35-70 3.3- d in the same condition. i like the results from both! i have had to switch from elements 10 for printing because it would not support my printers, as a result i now use nx2 and shoot raw. much better results me happy!!!! thank you all the new digs here are awesome Ed |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Good after morning!:hi: When i get tired of reading intelligent humor like mark twain, i go to the forums,on whatever, (this one not included in that list) as you know i have been looking for a macro lens. please know that although i have been a photographer for many years and a pro for some. i am not so much into the technologies involved, i am more of a try it i might like it kind. any way i think i had a brain f--- , in the discription of the tamron 60 mm 2.0 macro it states that it is a dx lens, then goes on to say it has a 1.5 aspect ratio or is the same as a 93mm fx lens what did i mis Tamron states it this way in their propaganda. wow this is taking a long time to write i have to look up the spelling of all these .50 cent words before i type them because i ran out of white out.  i assumed that a dx lens marked 60mm was indeed a 60mm when used on a dx body. and a fx lens used on a dx body had a 1.5 effective increase in focal length this all sounded very clear when it woke me in the middle of the night now of course it sounds rather duh!!!!  oh well it will probably all come out in the wash, be well shoot,enjoy,repeat :thumbsup: Ed Nothing is really clear since the Great Yellow Father (King Kodak) passed away!! for your enjoyment if i made you smile it was worth it LOL have a great day an thank you for all your comments an advice i think at this point i will go with the 60mm tamron as i cant find a new nikon 60 for a reasonable price than again i am putting off ordering till monday and things could change by then i have given up procrastinating because its such a bother  |
|||||||||
Doug
|
When you buy a good lens it will attract a 70% (or higher) resale value in good condition whether it is a day or five years old (provided it remains current and maintains the same street price)* If the 60mm Micro Nikkor can be had for $500 then you can probably sell it for $350+ at some future date (provided it is looked after) Wouldn't you hire a lens like this for $30/year? *this wouldn't be true for a lens like the 18-200 which could easily lose 50% or more of its value Btw 60mm is 60mm and DX merely means a smaller image circle covering a smaller sensor leading to greater magnification when that image is compared to one from a larger sensor As a result DX lenses are more likely to lose value, particularly if future bodies, like the rumored D400, move away from DX |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Ed Hutchinson wrote:Good after morning!:hi: Ed I am also mystified by that assertion. But then I do get things muxed ip these days. As I understand it, the Tamron 60mm has been specifically designed for the smaller sensor bodies...that's DX in Nikon parlance. This means to me, it's been corrected to give the correct field of view for a 60mm lens with that smaller sensor. It also means that it can't sensibly be used on an FX larger sensor body. So I just don't understand their assertion a 1.5x conversion takes place. If you use a Nikon60mm lens (which hasn't been corrected for smaller sensors) it WILL give you a 1.5x magnified 90mm on a DX body...but still work as 60mm on an FX body. All DX lenses give you the specified focal length. But maybe I am getting confused and need a holiday.  |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
hi Eric yep thats what i thought too but then i am just a dumb ol country boy and some things escape me maybe thats karma i am on holiday LOL forcibly retired and all and it leaves something to be desired when i figure that one out i will let you know ed |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Hi there:hi: is a Tokina 100mm 2.8, ordered yesterday, no more dragging my feet now, i don't know how i got this done as i gave up procrastination because it was too much trouble. SORRY i don't have any cigars to hand out:sleepy: i guess all i can do is say thanks for all the advice and well wishes i have been doing some 13x19s of very small things oooooooh what fun be well shoot,enjoy,repeat Ed you know you are getting old when someone compliments your new alligator shoes, and you are barefoot |
|||||||||
Squarerigger
|
Well done Ed, I hope you will post some reviews on the lens after spending some time with it. |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Hi Gary yes i will post a review although it may be somewhat feeble and convoluted (read from an old guy) i will try to delve into the small issues oooooops no pun intended i am now off to breakfast, things should get better after that be well Ed |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
 ITS HERE!!!! a day early whooooo hoooo!! i must say i am impressed right out of the box this lens looks good, like a quality item. manual focus is very smooth and the switch between auto and manual is easy and positive. i did not have a lot of time before the sun turned phinque and went down, but did manage to snap about 20 frames iso 1000 at 500th hand held on my d200 great color and detail as a test i printed some 13x19 no editing they came out beautiful :thumbsup: it is funny how one can know about something for years and never try it because your interests were someplace else then you try it on a whim and boooooom your hooked, thats meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :baffled: is it thursday yet? oh darn i have to wait how many hours till sunrise? i will post more after a third or fourth impression be well Ed |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
Hi sorry it has been a while since i have been here but i had a case of the punies (read flu)  blaaaaaa any way i did get out in the yard and did some shots hand held. i am very impressed with this tokina lens build and image quality both. I now have a remote release so now for some shots with the tripod and the d80 I know the d200 would be better but I don't have a release for it yet. working on that too be well Ed |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Sorry to hear you have been stricken with flu, not nice. You don't need a remote for the D200, use mirror up shutter delay (Exposure delay) and the shutter release timer delay of 2 or 5 seconds (Self Timer). The Exposure Delay can help especially with a longer lens where camera to subject distance is greater and magnification is high it lifts the mirror then waits a second or so for the vibrations to die before opening the shutter. I have seen greater sharpness when using Exposure Delay. |
|||||||||
Constable
|
Well done Robert. I'd forgotten that about the D200. It didnt/doesn't have Live View ... Is that correct? Ed |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Constable wrote:Well done Robert. I'd forgotten that about the D200. It didnt/doesn't have Live View ... Is that correct? Forgotten the D200??? Shame on you Ed! No, no live view, sad to say, but with such a small screen it would have limited value. I use the exposure delay for most of my close up stuff, it also has an intevalometer. I have used the intevalometer to capture sun rises and sunsets, also to try to capture the annual Perseid meteor shower, with limited success, I might add. |
|||||||||
kds315
|
Well, I have "a few" macro lenses and set up a site about them a while ago: http://www.macrolenses.de but its is mainly quite specialized ones, not that normal stuff everyone uses... (also for UV and IR and "monster lumens") |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Hey Klaus, Good to see you here! :thumbsup: |
|||||||||
jk
|
kds315 wrote: Well, I have "a few" macro lenses and set up a site about them a while ago:Hi Klaus, Welcome to the forum. At last I have another person who I can pick their brains on the UV work I would like to start. I know Bjorn Rorslett also drops in from time to time but he is also out on location for a lot of time. Anyway welcome I am sure that you will be able to provide us with some expert information on all things macro in the visible and invisible (to human) light ranges. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Ed- If I could only have one, it would be the NIkon 105 (new or used), the second choice would be the nikon 60. Tom |
|||||||||
jk
|
That is the problem. We always want/need the next lens/camera that allows us a new exploration of things close to or outside normal boundaries. I have the mikro Nikkors 60mm and 105mm for macro use but I would love to have the 105mm f4 UV lens but it is horribly expensive. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
From a technical point of view there are two reasons to use the 105mm UV Nikkor. Firstly the 105mm UV Nikkor has a good transmission of UV. Normal coated and uncoated lens elements block UV by a high percentage. That means long exposures to get the acceptable UV Images. Long exposure introduce their own issues. Secondly focus shift. The 105mm UV Nikkor is corrected for focus shift. If you take a UV image with a normal glass lens, coated or not, you will find that whatever you focused on won't be sharp, the actual point of focus will be behind the predetermined focus point. In my experience with the Nikkor Micro 55mm f2.8 at about 500mm range there is a back focus of about 22mm, so the trick I use is to focus on the subject, then slide the camera back about 22mm on an adjustable rail, which results in sharper images. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |