I've come to the dark side and ordered a D800. Which longer (150-200mm) macro lenses are not
going to be the limiting factor on this camera? I thought this would be a no-brainer to find data on,
but there seemed to be little objective data out there that was relevant (done on a D800/E or the bench).
Failing that, is there some mother lode of lens tests done on this camera available somewhere?
If you need longer than 200mm and more working distance, don't forget the Nikkor 300mm f/4 af-s (by itself MFD of 1.5m) with tubes or the excellent Canon 500D close up filter, which results in a 1:1 macro.
I was getting this camera to replace a 5DII I use in the studio to cut down on the number of images I need to composite - I was using a Tamron 180mm on the 5DII for this, and it was marginal (it had some problems with CA out toward the edges when the subject was back lit, etc).
The Tamrons have a filter effect control ring that rotates any filter on the front even if a large hood is in place. Works well for that but is a bit too loose if you put flash units on that filter thread.
The AF-S Nikon 105 micro is said to be not so sharp at longer distances as it is up close, making it less versatile than some others but the AF is reasonably fast.
You may find that VR or an equivalent is essential if you work hand-held and/or want to use Live View. Not all macro lenses have it.
Longer focal lengths give you more working distance between you and whatever you are photographing (usually a good thing if they are alive, but FL affects perspective as it does at longer distances).
The D800 will get the best out of any lens that you have but each lens can also get the worst out of the D800 if the settings or optics are less than ideal. e.g. the smaller the aperture beyond f/5.6 more resolution you lose relative to what the D800 can deliver at its best, and yet you may need more DOF than f/5.6 delivers.
I'm not a macro guy, but when I do play, I go for the Nikon 200mm on my D800/e.
It's still a fantastic lens and still produces sharp, detailed images. I've never compared to the sigma offerings, so I'm not sure which is better. All I know is the 200mm macro seems to work great with the D800 series bodies for my purposes. Here's one from the summer:
How did it look at 100% in the in-focus areas? - I hate this measurbation stuff but, given the costs involved with the images, I wanted to be able to at least be getting all the pixels I'm paying for...
After going through a couple of Tamron 180s (the first was out to lunch completely), this seems to be about as good as it gets with it. These are 100% crops of the lens both with and without mirror lockup on (funny that you need it even with studio flash). I also included crop from the same area from a sigma 50mm macro adjusted to have the same field of view (though not quite the same focus point unfortunately) - both tamron images
took a lot of sharpening, while the siggy image has very little - it seems to be visibly sharper than the Tamron so maybe the search continues :-(
rkgatteleport wrote:
After going through a couple of Tamron 180s (the first was out to lunch completely), this seems to be about as good as it gets with it. These are 100% crops of the lens both with and without mirror lockup on (funny that you need it even with studio flash). I also included crop from the same area from a sigma 50mm macro adjusted to have the same field of view (though not quite the same focus point unfortunately) - both tamron images
took a lot of sharpening, while the siggy image has very little - it seems to be visibly sharper than the Tamron so maybe the search continues :-(
Interesting. I have the Tamron 180 and find it tack sharp. Certainly as good as my brother's Nikon 200 and Nikon 60 micros. Reviewers say the same. With a longer micro lens you have to use damb good technique and sturdy tripod.
