ucphotog wrote:
I have never owned a full-frame camera, but I keep hoping... Maybe with the D800, prices on the D700 will drop... So, I tend toward FX lenses when I can afford them [...]
IMHO, unless you know why you need FX and you know that you can afford to spend the money, then just stick with DX. The biggest differences are that DX is always smaller, lighter, and cheaper than its FX equivalent, and then the fact that DX will give you roughly one stop greater DOF worth at the same settings. Which, for flowers and macros and landscapes (oh my!), is a decided advantage.
The AI-S 55/2.8 or /3.5 macros are a great option. From the new stuff, the new DX 40mm macro seems to have been made just for you.
kazinvan wrote:
Why can't you just shoot with the 105mm but a bit further back?
That will allow you to get the flower into the frame. However, the FOV in degrees is different. The perspective difference caused by the reduced depth compression at 40mm or 50mm is hugely -- I said hugely -- different from a 105mm lens.
If you do get the whole flower in the frame and you manage to get enough DOF -- which, as I was just saying, is going to be easier on a DX camera -- then the 105mm shot will look significantly flatter. The 40mm shot will have greater depth and will appear more "three-dimensional" to its viewers.
You may want one result or the other. But the two resulting images are decidedly different to the educated eye, and probably discernibly (and tantalizingly) different even to someone who doesn't understand why it's so, but sees a difference nonetheless.
Another vote for the old MF 55mm micro nikkor from me, I use a 55mm f/3.5 Ai.
One note on this lens that hasn't been mentioned yet - it won't meter on all cameras. It'll work great on cameras that support metering with old MF lenses (d7000, d200, d300, etc). On my D90 it was completely manual (guess exposure settings, take picture, adjust as necessary). It is easy to modify with a dandelion chip though.
Rodolfo's response about perspective is a significant part of it. Here is a set of flowers photographed a few minutes apart with the 105mm macro lens and a 21mm lens. (They are both cropped, and edited, and taken form a slightly different angle, as I wasn't planning to show them as 1:1 comparisons.
Nonetheless, the 105mm shot has a "from back there" feel about it, whereas the 21mm shot feels more "up close".
I don't think there's a lot of practical difference between the 2.8 and the 3.5 Nikkors. I have had the 3.5 since '76 and am still satisfied with it. Mine is very sharp at infinity.
I have a very early non-AI 55/3.5, a later vintage AI-s one, and the 60/2.8 AF-D. At f/8 I can't tell them apart. Wide open they're all good enough. These are some of Nikon's best lenses, and I really don't think you can go wrong with one of any vintage. If you watch Ebay very carefully, you can get one for around $60 pretty often.
I do a lot of critical copying work, scanning negatives at around 1:2, where the earliest one is supposedly better ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/in/photostream ). I tried all three for this, and if there's a difference, I don't see it. All three are virtually perfect.
you can't go wrong with a 60mm AF-D. They're cheap used, and better than that 55mm ais lense from the 1800s that everybody is obsessed with, that only does 1:2. Granted, you don't need 1:1 for everything, but it's nice to have, without going on some hunt for extension tubes. Also, you can almost correctly use a TTL flash with the 60mm AF-D over the completely manual stuff. If you're looking for immediate macro action, the AF-D or af-s stuff will get you there alot faster.
Here's the face of a dragonfly at about 1:4. Everything else is cropped away. D700 + 60mm f/2.8 AF-D, and some sort of flash. This things was just there on my doormat one day.
