macro

m147

i own a nikon d3000
i will, in due time, once i get a hang of basics and all that, want to get into macro photography. could somebody please advise me on macro lenses for my body. not necessarily nikkor lenses, and also what sort of flash and lighting systems i should be looking at. are ring flashes really important?

thank you.

ziggy53

If you consider true macro lenses, capable of 1:1 magnifications, then it's actually hard to find a macro lens that is all that bad. I settled upon an older used Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 AF Macro and it is an extraordinary value IMO. While it doesn't quite match some of the better true macro lenses when it's wide open, it is extremely sharp stopped down a bit. Since most of my use for the lens involve smaller apertures, it is perfect for my needs.

It's also a pretty good lens for landscapes and portraiture, at least when the 90mm FOV makes sense.

Nice review of the newer Nikon-mount version here:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/283-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-nikon-mount-lab-test-report--review

If you should decide upon this lens and if you need autofocus, make sure to purchase the version with a BIM (Built-In Motor).

greenpea

I would suggest starting simple. The easiest way to get into macro photography is with a close up filter. Think of it as reading glasses for your lens, it lets you use the lenses you currently have, but much close to the subject. I would also suggest the book Close-Up Photography in Nature by Tim Fitzharris

m147

ziggy53 wrote: »

If you consider true macro lenses, capable of 1:1 magnifications, then it's actually hard to find a macro lens that is all that bad. I settled upon an older used Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 AF Macro and it is an extraordinary value IMO. While it doesn't quite match some of the better true macro lenses when it's wide open, it is extremely sharp stopped down a bit. Since most of my use for the lens involve smaller apertures, it is perfect for my needs.

It's also a pretty good lens for landscapes and portraiture, at least when the 90mm FOV makes sense.

Nice review of the newer Nikon-mount version here:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/283-tamron-af-90mm-f28-di-sp-macro-nikon-mount-lab-test-report--review

If you should decide upon this lens and if you need autofocus, make sure to purchase the version with a BIM (Built-In Motor).

nice review, thank you for the link. i checked it out on amazon.co.jp, the price is nice as well. could you tell me where this lens is made?

also, how does this lens, for you who have had experience with these lenses, compare to the tokina AF 100mm f/2.8 macro AT-XM Pro D as well as the Nikkor AF-S VR ED 105mm f/2.8 G (IF)?

yendikeno

I can't tell you how it compares to the Tokina, but like Ziggy, have the Tamron 90mm macro lens and love it. It works very well as both a macro and portrait lens in a light, compact package, at a reasonable price. Plus, Tamron often has rebates available for this lens. When I bought mine I shopped around for the best price, then submitted the paperwork and got $50 back from Tamron!.

Icebear

I also highly endorse the Tamron. As already stated, in addition to being a fine true macro tool, it's a superb portrait lens. I made the mistake of lending it to my daughter, who takes portraits of the sports teams at the school where she teaches, and can't get the damned thing back now.

What I like about it as a portrait lens is that I can kind of mindlessly whack it open to f2.8, and shoot. I get great bokeh without having to worry too much about one but not the other eye being in focus like I would if I (mindlessly) opened up a 1.8 or 1.4. I know that's an operator error thing, but it does save me from myself sometimes. As Ziggy said, it's a great value. It's also the only non-Nikkor lens I currently own.

Icebear

Oohhh . . . flashes. Don't get me started. Take some time. Look at the stickeys and tutorials in Holy Macro. I have Nikon's high-zoot macro flash setup. Big whoop. Yeah, it's cool, and can produce some really good light, but there are other WAY cheepah ways to do it.

Art Scott

there are several ways to get into macro, but having used the diopter filters I would suggest against them.....
the reason for this is they are filters and some in filter diameters so from my experience make them just
barely useful and then only useful with a lens of the same filter diameter so you are extremely limited......

I would go with a set of Kenko extension tubes....they will work with any lens that you attach to them......

Also I like to get as great a worklng distance as I can from the subject....so I would suggest the Sigma 150 macro....
This lens has about an 18" working distance...which gives you room for lighting the macro object......

Lighting......save your money and get the best flash units you can...if you plan on staying with Nikon then look at getting either
used or New Sb800 or 900's and when you upgrade the D3000 get a body that offers the Nikon CLS wireless commander mode.....
These flases (as do most hot shoe flash units) come with a foot so they can stand alone and do not have to be connected to the
camera hot shoe...........the Sigma 530DG Super.......or the older Sigma 500DG Super.........

m147

i was looking at the tokina lens i mentioned above. it is 100mm but i have read (photozone i think) that it is a full-frame lens so for my camera it would translate to a 150mm, do any of you know if this is correct? this would be a good option for me to look into as it would work later if i ever decide to go with a full frame camera body.

m147

for those of you who have the tamron, could you please tell me where it is made?

Art Scott

I do believe most all prime lenses are made to be used on FF cameras as well as crop cams.....
especially those coming from Sigma, Tamron or Tokina

puzzledpaul

Re lighting - a good - but not necessarily the most powerful (lighter weight also useful when on end of macro arm) - single flash setup is capable of producing superb results in the field.
But you'll have to use a suitable macro bracket to get the flash off cam and to position it properly.
You'll be able to use a std flash in more 'normal' situations - as well as it being cheaper than dedicated macro setups.
Ring flashes can severely (imo) reduce your shooting options (in some situations) because of the much greater diameter they impose at the end of the lens - eg resting the end of the lens on the same surface as the subject.

I too use a single flash Canon setup , so no idea about Nikon gear, but check out the macro forum for details of Lordv's setup - single flash (not most powerful available) , home brew macro arm and home made diffuser - results speak for themselves

I'd also add an endorsement for extn tubes too, as they can be used on more or less any lens.

pp

cab.in.boston

m147 wrote: »

it is a full-frame lens so for my camera it would translate to a 150mm

I don't know if the particular lens in question covers FF or is meant for a crop sensor, but I just wanted to clear up what looks like a misconception. It doesn't matter if a lens is made for crop or FF, the stated focal length is what it is. Therefore, even a lens that is designed for a crop sensor is subject to the "crop factor." For example, the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, even though it is made for DX, has a "full frame equivalent" focal length of 35 * 1.5 = 52.5 mm.

You are correct in that if you wish to use a lens on a FF body in the future, you should ensure you get lenses with an image circle large enough for the FF sensor, but don't think that if a lens is designed for a crop sensor that the "crop factor" doesn't apply to it.

m147

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I don't know if the particular lens in question covers FF or is meant for a crop sensor, but I just wanted to clear up what looks like a misconception. It doesn't matter if a lens is made for crop or FF, the stated focal length is what it is. Therefore, even a lens that is designed for a crop sensor is subject to the "crop factor." For example, the 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, even though it is made for DX, has a "full frame equivalent" focal length of 35 * 1.5 = 52.5 mm.

You are correct in that if you wish to use a lens on a FF body in the future, you should ensure you get lenses with an image circle large enough for the FF sensor, but don't think that if a lens is designed for a crop sensor that the "crop factor" doesn't apply to it.

so basically what you are saying is, if i understand correctly, ALL lenses used on a crop body are subject to a crop factor? so lets say my lens that came with the body: 18-55mm is actually 27-82,5mm?

Icebear

m147 wrote: »

so basically what you are saying is, if i understand correctly, ALL lenses used on a crop body are subject to a crop factor? so lets say my lens that came with the body: 18-55mm is actually 27-82,5mm?

Yes and no. Yes. Any lens used on a crop body will give you the effect of having a longer focal length than it would have on a traditional 35mm film camera. But a 28mm lens is a 28mm lens. On a 1.5x crop body with its smaller sensor (compared to a full frame (24X36mm) sensor, the apparent focal length (based on the sensor coverage by the focused image) will be 42mm. The focal length of the lens is still 28mm. DX lenses are optimized for the smaller sensors. This does not mean they are "better" lenses for crop bodies. It just means they can be made smaller.

cab.in.boston

m147 wrote: »

so basically what you are saying is, if i understand correctly, ALL lenses used on a crop body are subject to a crop factor? so lets say my lens that came with the body: 18-55mm is actually 27-82,5mm?

Essentially correct. As John said, DX lenses are optimized for DX bodies, meaning the image circle they project is large enough to cover a DX sensor but not necessarily large enough to cover FX. Some DX lenses may work (usually with vignetting) on FX sensors, but if they do it's just a bonus. FX lenses will work on DX bodies, but the sensor only needs the middle of the image circle, so all that extra glass that is required to make the larger image is essentially just dead weight. One can certainly use FX lenses on DX bodies with no ill effects so long as you don't mind carrying the weight. Since this means that you aren't using the edges of the image circle, and the edges are often the weakest parts of a lens, using an FX lens on DX can often give you just the "sweet spot" of the image, and any edge weakness does not show up on a DX body.

Your 18-55mm lens is still 18-55mm, but when comparing it to the old standard of 35mm film format, it "appears" to be equivalent to 27-82.5mm. Other camera companies use different crop factors so for example, the 2x crop Olympus (I think it's Olympus) 14-42mm lens is 28-84 equivalent. It's still really a 14-42, it just looks like the field of view of a FX/film equivalent of 28-84mm.

Again as John said, this means that DX-optimized lenses can be made smaller and lighter weight.

My personal preference is to buy the best lens for what you have now. Unless you are really going to go FX in the next few months, don't have any fear of buying DX/crop lenses. If you take good care of your gear, you should be able to resell lenses if and when you move to FX. Also, sometimes due to the crop factor, FX lenses are somewhat awkward on DX bodies. I initially bought a D90 and a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. After using it for a while, I found that the wide end just wasn't wide enough, so I returned it and have replaced it with a Tamron 17-50, which I feel is much better suited. I personally have no plans to ever go FX, but that won't stop me from buying FX glass if it's a better option than what is offered in DX, for example I plan to get a good 70-200 at some point. The crop factor limits you much more on the wide end than telephoto, as that 70-200 will behave like a 105-300, but the 24-70 is like a 36-105.

In the meantime, DX lenses are typically smaller and less expensive than FX, so you can achieve your desired result without the larger outlay of cash. In some cases, a lens you want may only be offered as an FX lens, so get it if it suits you. For instance, I think most macro lenses (other than the Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 DX VR) are FX.

Anyway, moral of the story (dang, I just cannot write short messages...) is that marked focal lengths are what they are, and the "equivalent" focal length depends on the crop factor of the body. Any lens you put on a DX body will act like it's 1.5x longer than it is.

puzzledpaul

<< marked focal lengths are what they are >>

Indeed - and it's sometimes worth considering the crop factor / file size as part of the 'mix' too - as it can have some wallet / ccard ramifications

eg a 400mm lens on a 50D (15mp / 1.6 crop) produces an image which is only a few % smaller (pixel count) than an image produced by a 1D3(10mp / 1.3crop)+ 500mm

If the 400 is a 5.6 and the 500 is a f4 ... then there's a significant difference in the wallet 'hit'.

Yes, the subject on the 50D will not 'fill the frame' to the same extent as the other rig - but the pixel count describing the subject (and available for printing) won't be so different - especially when considering the cost difference.

pp

m147

thank you all for all your input. i understand a lot more now and have many good considerations to keep in mind while i save up money for a macro lens. it seems i have narrowed it down to the tamron many of you are recommending and the tokina i have mentioned. some of the features that have me leaning more towards the tokina are the sturdier build and the fact that it is made in japan. however, i do have some time, a month or two, before i will actually purchase one or the other and so i have to read more reviews and listen to more recommendations. thank you all.

ziggy53

Just to reinforce the concept of the "crop factor", I prefer to think of the crop factor as a multiplier to allow a previsualization of the Field-Of-View (FOV) of a focal length. I prefer to think of the FOV in more descriptive terms than numerical terms.

I would greatly prefer to speak in terms of:



I know that the manufacturers are more flexible with their usage of these terms, calling a 10mm lens an "ultra-wide-angle" lens on crop cameras, but then again they also call their close focus zooms "macro", so ...

cab.in.boston

m147 wrote: »

some of the features that have me leaning more towards the tokina are the sturdier build and the fact that it is made in japan.

If where it's built is really important, I'm not positive about the macro Tamron mentioned, but my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is made in Japan.

OTOH, all three of my Nikkor lenses and my Nikon flash are made in China, and I'm pretty sure both my Nikon bodies are made in Taiwan (D90 for sure, not positive about the D300).

m147

cab.in.boston wrote: »

If where it's built is really important, I'm not positive about the macro Tamron mentioned, but my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is made in Japan.

OTOH, all three of my Nikkor lenses and my Nikon flash are made in China, and I'm pretty sure both my Nikon bodies are made in Taiwan (D90 for sure, not positive about the D300).

maybe it's just being picky or OCD but i tend to trust products made in japan (or other countries known for quality) over ones made in other places, especially when it comes to something like this, where you are investing a good deal of money. however, these days it is so difficult to get anything not made in china or the other asian countries. my d3000 body and nikkor 18-55 lens are both made in thailand and the nikkor 55-200 is made in china.

cab.in.boston

m147 wrote: »

maybe it's just being picky or OCD but i tend to trust products made in japan (or other countries known for quality) over ones made in other places, especially when it comes to something like this, where you are investing a good deal of money. however, these days it is so difficult to get anything not made in china or the other asian countries. my d3000 body and nikkor 18-55 lens are both made in thailand and the nikkor 55-200 is made in china.

Oops, you're right. I meant my D90 (and D300, I think) are made in Thailand, not Taiwan.

As far as Nikon products go, I think only their top of the line pro gear is actually made in Japan. I understand what you mean, but I also think that Nikon's quality control is pretty darn good, no matter where the factory is. The plastic mount on the 55-200 bothers me more than where it's made, but that's all part of it being a "bargain" lens...

ziggy53

I worked with a company for 31 years that sold some products that were made in other countries. In many cases components were manufactured literally all over the world, and the "Made In" country would only be the country of final assembly.

In other words, "Made In ..." doesn't necessarily mean much of anything.

yendikeno

Here you go

m147 wrote: »

for those of you who have the tamron, could you please tell me where it is made?

Mine is the Tamron SP Di, and is made in Japan.