Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Macro World Resource
  

FM Forums | Macro & Still Life | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · Lens for a Nikon?

  
 
kinconorb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Lens for a Nikon?


Hello All,

I was wondering if anyone had advice for a Nikon shooter on what would be a good AF lens for macro photography. I have a 55mm F/2.8 Micro AIS that I have been messing around with for a few years but was hoping to invest in a AF lens.

I'm looking into buying a used copy of one the following 3 lenses:

Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D
Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8D
Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D

The 60 I feel is too close to my MF 55mm and the 200mm cost a bit too much would need to sell some gear or maybe look for a MF version.



Mar 12, 2017 at 06:30 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Lens for a Nikon?


I have studied Canon macros (and owned most of them) for a number of years. I moved from the Canon 180mm f/3.5 to the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro. It blew the Canon away. After switching to Nikon a year ago, I did the same thing with their macros. The Sigma was still better than the Nikon AF macros.

However, LenScore never tested the Nikkor 200mm, so the jury is still out there. By every test I have ever seen, the Nikkor 200mm macro is better than the Canon 180 too. If you look at the FAQ of LenScore, they have a Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D IF-ED Micro in the bullpen, ready for testing

So the jury is still out there. Keep in mind, there are 3 similar Sigmas: the Sigma 150 f/2.8, the Sigma 180 f/3.5, and the newer Sigma 180 f/2.8. The last one, the 180 f/2.8 is the best of the bunch. (If you look it up on LenScore, the Sigma 180mm beats ALL AF macro lenses, Canon or Nikon, bar none ... except, again, we're still waiting on the 200 Nikkor.)

I would keep 3 things in mind before you buy:

  1. Wait for the test to see which prevails, the Sigma 180 f/2.8, or the Nikon 200 f/4;
  2. Go with the better option overall;
  3. Realize that "the bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten," so save a few months extra and get the macro lens you *really* want, not just the one you can "afford right now." (You already have a budget, and pretty darned good, macro lens to tide you over while you wait.

While none of your listed choices are 'poor-quality' (they're all good, really), since you're shopping right now, it will feel better to get the very best one you can.

Good luck



Mar 12, 2017 at 09:13 PM
rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Lens for a Nikon?


keep the MF 55mm F/2.8 Micro AiS for use in the studio (I have 2 of the 55 MF Micros)

the items you will photograph and their speed & evasiveness will determine whether you buy the 100 or 200 (only avail. as a gear drive lens)

what are your subjects? and what body (bodies?) do you have?



Mar 12, 2017 at 10:41 PM
Archibald
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Lens for a Nikon?


Consider lighting when considering macro. Picking a lens is relatively easy; lighting is more challenging.

Basically all macro lenses are very sharp. All lenses are subject to the same laws of optics. That means they all produce about the same DOF and diffraction. Most of the time you will need to stop down and that reduces resolution, by about the same amount for all macro lenses.

But lighting is different. There are dozens of ways to light your subject. Many use on-camera flash. The flash provides abundant light of the right color, and freezes motion. But bare flash is harsh. Therefore it needs to be diffused.

There are many ways to soften light from flash, but all have one thing in common. Soft light is the result of having a large area close to the subject. It needs to be large and close.

You can read more about apparent light size here (by Strobist)
http://strobist.blogspot.ca/2007/07/lighting-102-unit-21-apparent-light.html

What this means is, if you want the convenience of on-camera flash, you need as short a working distance as possible, because the light source will be closer to the subject. In turn that means a short focal length.

I'm making some assumptions here, of course, and these may not apply to you. But many of us do shoot this way, and pick a shorter focal length, for instance around 100mm.

If you are doing available light macro, then this does not apply, and a longer focal length might be right for you. Similarly if you are shooting non-living subjects in your indoor macro studio, then a shorter focal length might work best.

In summary, what I am saying is, consider lighting when considering macro lenses.



Mar 13, 2017 at 07:55 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Lens for a Nikon?


Ideally, you should use a lens which is optimised for the magnification range you will mostly be using. I suspect that it will not be easy to find that information.

Legacy examples are the Olympus OM 50mm macro lenses (f3.5 and f2) which would give up to 1:2 but were optimised for 1:10.

Harold



Mar 14, 2017 at 03:08 AM
Callahan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Lens for a Nikon?


There are some advantages to shorter lenses. Easier to get diffused light near your subject. Easier to transport and handhold because of size and weight. The possibility of steadying a plant your subject is on with your free hand is possible because of the shorter working distance. Small movements of your system are less problematic because of basic trigonometry. I've moved away from the MP-E65 after using it for years because the lens plus the MT-24EX were bulky and awkward. A Tamron 60mm macro plus a Raynox DCR-250 gives the same sharpness up to about 2X and is a lot easier to operate. On new, higher megapixel cameras, 2X is about all most people need. The idea that being so close to your subjects that they are spooked is balanced against a very large system not as close, but just as scary. An excellent photographer who uses a similar setup has photos that can be seen here: Kong Chee Seng


Mar 15, 2017 at 11:08 AM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Lens for a Nikon?


Thin lenses are also better than fat ones for close macro.

As you go up the magnifications, a longer working distance can become more important, as the front of the lens can snag the substrate.

Harold




Mar 15, 2017 at 11:34 AM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Lens for a Nikon?


Callahan wrote:
There are some advantages to shorter lenses. Easier to get diffused light near your subject. Easier to transport and handhold because of size and weight. The possibility of steadying a plant your subject is on with your free hand is possible because of the shorter working distance. Small movements of your system are less problematic because of basic trigonometry. I've moved away from the MP-E65 after using it for years because the lens plus the MT-24EX were bulky and awkward. A Tamron 60mm macro plus a Raynox DCR-250 gives the same sharpness up to about 2X and is a lot
...Show more

This is a very good post in general.

However, the OP already has a short macro lens, a 55mm AI-S, which is extremely sharp edge-to-edge, with a 52mm thread to allow for magnifying attachments, and so he can already perform for the kind of photography you mention with what he has. If he is seeking to get right up on his subject, and achieving 2:1 magnification, through amendments, his desired AF is useless for this kind of macro shooting.

Since the OP is specifically seeking an AF lens, rejecting a 60mm Nikkor as being too close to what he already has, and since he's giving an array of longer glass as choices, the presumption is he is trying to cover more distant shots, where both working distance and AF would come into play. So while your post is very true, it's not really dealing with the question.



Mar 15, 2017 at 12:36 PM
Callahan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Lens for a Nikon?


His lens is not AF. The Tamron is. Since he hasn't mentioned what subjects he's after, he may only be looking for AF. His lens is also not 1:1. We'll have to know more to help him....


Mar 15, 2017 at 01:11 PM
JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Lens for a Nikon?


Callahan wrote:
His lens is not AF. The Tamron is. Since he hasn't mentioned what subjects he's after, he may only be looking for AF. His lens is also not 1:1. We'll have to know more to help him....


True, but he is already rejecting the micro-Nikkor 60mm, which is 1:1, and very sharp as well.

IMO, by directly rejecting a 60mm 1:1 Nikkor lens, because it's "too close" to his 55mm macro, a lens he already has, he's therefore rejecting any 60mm macro.



Mar 15, 2017 at 01:38 PM
Callahan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Lens for a Nikon?


Maybe. Let's wait and see what the OP thinks after reading all of this stuff.


Mar 15, 2017 at 01:54 PM
rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Lens for a Nikon?


on Nikons, lighting is easy with the R1C1 system


Mar 15, 2017 at 03:27 PM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Lens for a Nikon?


rw11 wrote:
on Nikons, lighting is easy with the R1C1 system


If he's thinking the 200 isout of his budget, just wait until he finds out how much the R1C1 costs !

How is it used with longer FLs and longer WDs of the 180mm - 200mm ? not so good methinks. More suited to shorter FL/WD of the 60mm just like the mpe65mm MT-E24 for Canon and even that is not "easy" to use or at least not to get soft light. Convenient yes, easy, no.

If the OP is using flash, better off with an off camera flash on a bracket to get the light source adjacent to the end of the lens.

To the OP -

I recently tried the 200 AF-D, very sharp, very heavy, no VR/OS. The MF equivalent is nowhere near as sharp.

I'm currently using the Sigma 105mm f2.8 OS for small bugs and have the Nikon 6T and Canon 500D diopters for > 1:1. Is the lens as well built as the Nikkor ? no, is it as heavy ? NO! and the OS is really handy. I don't shoot AF for macro but if I did I would go with the Sigma 150mm f2.8 OS (better AF than the 105mm).


Andy






Mar 15, 2017 at 06:23 PM
rw11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Lens for a Nikon?


yeh - they aren't exactly giving that flash system away...

decent flash setups can be cobbled together - esp. if you use milk jugs...



Mar 15, 2017 at 06:36 PM
kinconorb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Lens for a Nikon?


Thank you for all the thoughtful comments everyone, I apologize for the lack of feedback on my end.

I own a D700 and D800 so will be shooting full-frame and subject matter will be mostly flowers, bugs, or more generally nature type stuff. I haven't given much though to lighting most of the images I've taken with my 55/2.8 were using natural light. Macro photograph is new territory for me and the 55/2.8 I purchased for cheap well before the AIS lens crazy started so it was not a huge investment I think I paid something like $45 for it. Eventually, if I get more into macro I would consider investing money into some makeshift lighting setup but for now natural light works

In terms of lens manufacturers I would prefer to stick with Nikon just because every non-Nikon lens I've ever owned has always had some sort of weird issue.

I guess for my needs starting with the 60mm might be good? Its a step up from the 55/2.8 is sounds like.



Mar 16, 2017 at 10:41 PM
kinconorb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Lens for a Nikon?


cadman342001 wrote:
If he's thinking the 200 isout of his budget, just wait until he finds out how much the R1C1 costs!


If we're talking new prices the R1C1 is only $699 you make it sound like a small fortune. The 200/4 Micro I was talking about cost $1799 new a bit pricey for someone whose inexperienced with macro photography.

The 60 and 105 I could justify spending the money on as specialty lenses but the 200 I would have to sell at least one of my other pointless novelty lenses like the 14/2.8 or buy a MF version.



Mar 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Lens for a Nikon?


kinconorb wrote:
will be shooting full-frame and subject matter will be mostly flowers, bugs, or more generally nature type stuff.


AF is appropriate but I find that it often it more nuisance than help, so I turn it off. If you graduate to smaller subjects you may find MF more useful.

Harold



Mar 17, 2017 at 02:35 AM
Callahan
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Lens for a Nikon?


kinconorb wrote:
I guess for my needs starting with the 60mm might be good? Its a step up from the 55/2.8 is sounds like.


The 60mm is a good lens, but since you are mostly planning on using natural light and would like to stick to Nikon, I think the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED would be a better choice. With your camera bodies and the 60mm there may be a problem blocking the light you need. With its longer working distance, the 105mm will give you less of a problem. People have mentioned the R1C1 system. I've found it to be even more difficult to use--especially getting good diffusion--than Canon's MT-24EX which I've used extensively.



Mar 17, 2017 at 10:58 AM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Lens for a Nikon?


kinconorb wrote:
If we're talking new prices the R1C1 is only $699 you make it sound like a small fortune. The 200/4 Micro I was talking about cost $1799 new a bit pricey for someone whose inexperienced with macro photography.

The 60 and 105 I could justify spending the money on as specialty lenses but the 200 I would have to sell at least one of my other pointless novelty lenses like the 14/2.8 or buy a MF version.


Unless you are going to be doing hi-mag work with it's minimal working distance then it's not necessary and a $75 ttl yongnuo flash on a bracket is just as good. 700 bucks IS a small fortune for a flash



Mar 17, 2017 at 05:29 PM
e6filmuser
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Lens for a Nikon?


cadman342001 wrote:
700 bucks IS a small fortune for a flash


A ludicrous price. A quick look on Ebay showed I could get my three-gun Olympus RC TTL kit for £450 and I shoot down to 7:1.

Harold



Mar 18, 2017 at 02:08 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Macro & Still Life | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.