Macro-Shooting Gift for My Wife

capitoljayhawk

My wife and I shoot Nikon D90 and D700, respectively (though my wife often uses the D700).

My wife is getting into macro photography. I assume it will expand into shooting flowers and bugs. For now, it is shooting food (which I consider macro, but I may be using that incorrectly).

I'm shopping for my wife for Christmas. Any recommendations? I'm looking for lenses or flash systems (R1?).

Thanks in advance!

System

The Nikon 105 2.8 macro is a fantastic lens as is the 60 2.8 macro. Some like the Sigma 150 2.8 macro.
With the longer focal length lenses you won't have to get as close to that wasp or bee or other bug. The 60 2.8 AF-D does not have the internal motor but with the D-90 or D-700 you don't need it. All three can be used on both your FX and DX bodies.

capitoljayhawk

captain78 wrote: »

The Nikon 105 2.8 macro is a fantastic lens as is the 60 2.8 macro. Some like the Sigma 150 2.8 macro.
With the longer focal length lenses you won't have to "get as close to that wasp or bee or other bug. The 60 2.8 AF-D does not have the internal motor but with the D-90 or D-700 you don't need it. All three can be used on both your FX and DX bodies.

Thanks. Can you fill me in generally on "macro" lenses? How does the 60 2.8 differ from my nornal 50mm 1.8? I should know this answer, but . . .

System

Your 50 will not allow you to focus close enough to make macro photos.

The 60 has a minimum focus distance of 8.6 inches & and a reproduction ratio of 1:1
The 50 has a minimum focus distance of 17 inches & and a reproduction ratio of 1:6.6
To be considered a true macro lens, you need a reproduction ratio of 1:1

Ok so what does that mean to you. Below is link to macro & non macro photos taken with my 60 2.8 macro lens.
http://captain78.smugmug.com/Other/Octoberfest-2011/19220751_GbpFjh#1506732739_sS3XwnD

As you see in my photos, a macro lens can be used for close up and regular photos as well. I am bias to the 60 because I own one.

Below is another link explains macro lenses.http://www.ehow.com/facts_5127549_macro-lens.html

Now that you are totally confused, google "macro photography" or "macro lenses".
Hope this helps.

ziggy53

capitoljayhawk wrote: »

Thanks. Can you fill me in generally on "macro" lenses? How does the 60 2.8 differ from my nornal 50mm 1.8? I should know this answer, but . . .

A true "macro" lens will generally allow subject magnifications to 1:1. On a FF body this means that a US quarter will fit the vertical frame (more or less) when the lens is at closest focus. (A US quarter is around 24.26 mm, just about the same as the vertical height of a FF imager.)

On a DX/crop camera, like the Nikon D90, a US dime will likewise just about the vertical frame. (This means that a DX camera provides magnifications greater than lifesize with a true macro lens rated at 1:1 magnification.)

This is not to be confused with "marketing 'macro'" lenses, like some zoom lenses that have the label "macro" assigned to them. They are not true macro magnifications.

Macro lenses are also capable of close focus, in fact they do very well in that regard. Normal lenses tend not to do their best at Minimum Focus Distance (MFD), but macro lenses do very well indeed.

Macro lenses also tend to be extremely sharp prime lenses. Something of around 100mm should make a very good portrait lens for head-and-shoulders and head shots. Macro lenses are also very well corrected and make excellent lenses for stitched panoramas.

capitoljayhawk

Thanks all!

cab.in.boston

ziggy53 wrote: »

On a DX/crop camera, like the Nikon D90, a US dime will likewise just about the vertical frame. (This means that a DX camera provides magnifications greater than lifesize with a true macro lens rated at 1:1 magnification.)

Not to question the mighty Ziggy, but this doesn't ring true to me. A dime will fill the DX frame, not because the magnification is higher, but because the sensor is smaller, no?

My understanding is that the crop factor just gives you a different angle of view, thus seeming like you're using a longer lens, but the magnification of said lens will still "only" get you 1:1. With a 16x24mm sensor, the largest item you can focus on to fill the frame is 16x24mm. It will seem larger than lifesize when printed the same size as a full-frame image, but the image projected onto the sensor is still only 1:1.

Or do I totally misunderstand macro?

basflt

cab.in.boston , you misunderstood

1:1 means , ratio of the light that leaves the lens to the size of the sensor
with "normal" lenses , the dimensions of the light leaving the lens is bigger then the sensor , the light beam is sort of taper , narrowed down
with an MPE65 , its the other way around , the sensor is bigger then the light stream leaving the lens
1:1 , the light hit the sensor in a straight line , not bigger , not smaller

this has nothing to do with close-up
with a normal macro lens you could even shoot landscapes

roakey

If she has a lens that currently fits her application, you may wnat to look into a ring flash. Being a Canon shooter I apologize, I can't help with specifics.

Roak

basflt

ring flash aint no good
twin flash is better , R1 or R1C1
basically they are the same
R1 is triggered by camera , R1C1 has its own commander unit (recommended by me )
[ ofcoarse we cannot look in the wallet of OP ]

cab.in.boston

basflt wrote: »

cab.in.boston , you misunderstood

1:1 means , ratio of the light that leaves the lens to the size of the sensor
with "normal" lenses , the dimensions of the light leaving the lens is bigger then the sensor , the light beam is sort of taper , narrowed down
with an MPE65 , its the other way around , the sensor is bigger then the light stream leaving the lens
1:1 , the light hit the sensor in a straight line , not bigger , not smaller

this has nothing to do with close-up
with a normal macro lens you could even shoot landscapes

I'm pretty sure this isn't right, either.

1:1 refers to the magnification factor, and the ability of the lens to focus on close objects goes hand in hand with the magnification. All lenses have a minimum focus distance (MFD), on some long lenses this distance can be on the order of multiple meters. That means your lens can't achieve focus on anything closer than the MFD.

If you fill the frame with your subject, due to the MFD, there is a minimum size object that you can both fill the frame with and focus on. If the smallest object you can focus is 4 times larger than the frame, then your lens has a magnification ratio of 1:4. The FX sensor is one inch (give or take) tall, that means with a 1:4 ratio you can fill the frame vertically with an object 4 inches tall. An object any smaller and you can't focus on it due to limitations of the lens construction. With a 1:1 macro, you can fill the frame with a one inch tall object. This also means that the actual image projected onto the sensor is the same size as the object physically is. The lens is capable of rendering an in-focus image at a 1:1 size ratio of the physical object to the image on the sensor. This is why macro photography is used to shoot very small things. The image takes up most of the sensor, so when printed, tiny objects look very large. I believe there are also larger-than-lifesize lenses, these would have magnification ratios that look like 2:1, meaning you can focus on an object only half the linear dimension of your sensor.

Yes, you can use macro lenses for landscape/portrait/sports/etc. However, what I've been told is that because macro lenses are designed with the ability to focus so closely (and whether it's a long macro, like a 200mm, or short, like a 40mm, the close focus distance will be much shorter than the same length normal lens), while you can use them for non-macro photography, they typically focus more slowly, and also typically have smaller maximum apertures than their non-macro counterparts because at macro focal distances, depth of field is much smaller, so you can use f/2.8 or smaller aperture and still have razor thin DoF.

My comment re: Ziggy's post was directed at his assertion that on DX/crop cameras, a 1:1 macro actually renders bigger-than-lifesize images, when it actually doesn't. The lens still produces a lifesize image, but the crop sensor only sees the center ~44% of it. So when printed large, yes, it kind of looks like it's larger than lifesize, but it's really not, it just has the angle of view of a longer lens. Thus, while a 1:1 lens will vertically fill a FX frame with a US quarter and a DX frame with a dime, that's not because the lens is magnifying the image any further on the crop body, it's just that the smaller sensor fills up with a smaller coin.

ziggy53

Absolutely correct, cab. The magnification only "seems" to be more on the crop imager because of the reduced FOV (which is what I should have said.)

capitoljayhawk

Okay. I'm back (what else is new?). So, I am now torn between the 60mm 2.8 micro and the 105mm 2.8 micro VR. I have been reading online that some people don't like how close you must get with the 60mm because you get in your light. Really, two questions:

1. Have you all had problems with a 60mm micro on that score?

2. Would that be solved by using the R1?

Back to its use: my wife would use this to shoot food, but she may get into butterflies, etc. With the food, I'm tempted to do the 60mm combined with the R1. But I could also get the 105mm micro. (I won't get both the 105mm and the R1, just on the basis of the cost.)

Thoughts??

Thanks again, everyone! I really rely on all your experience.

ziggy53

Yes, a short focal length macro lens can obstruct the light from either a built-in flash or camera-mounted external flash.

You can use a number of methods to get around the problem but the longer focal length macro lenses also have more versatility (IMO) and generally get you further away from timid and potentially dangerous subjects.

You don't have to go with the manufacturer's macro lenses. It's actually pretty hard to find a bad true macro lens. The one I ended up with is the Tamron 90mm, f2.8. It's an extremely good value, very high quality and not very heavy. I can easily recommend it.

capitoljayhawk

Excellent. Thanks.

zoomer

another vote for the 150 2.8 Sigma.
Great lens. I also use it for other things. It is sharp wide open which makes if very useful.

capitoljayhawk

Have you all compared the Sigma to the Nikor lens, or is there a site that might do that? I typically buy all Nikon gear. Not sure that's necessary, but I have been pretty loyal.

ziggy53

This link should take you to a comparison of the Sigma 150mm, f2.8 macro, mounted on a Canon 1D MKIII, versus a Nikkor 105mm, f2.8G macro, mounted on a Nikon D3x (mouse-over):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=378&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=645&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

capitoljayhawk

thanks, Ziggy. Not sure what to make of the results . . .

ziggy53

capitoljayhawk wrote: »

thanks, Ziggy. Not sure what to make of the results . . .

Those are "pixel peeping" type samples from 3 spots of each example (center, nearer the edge, corner). The basic take-away is that both are excellent macro lenses in their own right.

NurseLoaf

I have the Sigma 150 and love it. Looking at the image Ziggy posted, it looks like the Nikon 105 has a bit of chromatic aberration, compared to the Sigma. If you change the parameters and look at the Nikon 200 Micro, there is none. Now that is the dream lens. Or the MPE65, but I'm on Nikon. But I have considered a canon body just for the MPE65.

paddler4

IMHO, you need to focus on (no pun intended) working distance at closest focus. That is the most important way that lenses of different focal lengths differ for macro work. (There are other differences too, but less critical.) I shoot macro with a crop-sensor camera and use both 60mm and 100mm. 60 is short for bugs because you have to get so close that you are more likely to scare them off. I generally use the 100 for that. However, for flowers and other static subjects, particularly if you are shooting indoors with a tripod, you long working distances can be a real pain. I most often do flowers on a granite kitchen counter (because the mass makes for very little movement, essential at slow shutter speeds), and a 150mm lens would be too long for that surface. Even the 100 is sometimes long, so I do most of those with the 60mm. So, I'd suggest that you start by deciding how much working distance you need, given whatever type of macro you want to do.

Re lighting: for available light, FL does not matter. For artificial light, I do almost 100% of my macro either with incandescent or halogen lights that I position, or with a diffused flash head mounted very close to the end of the lens. For that lighting, the physical length of the lens does not matter. If you are going to leave a flash mounted in the hot shoe, then it will.

cbbr

Depending on how deep your pockets are - a 105VR is just about the best all around Macro made for Nikon's. It does lots of things very well, macro is its specialty. People recommend many lenses, but they all compare the oithers to the 105VR when telloing you how nice the others are... the 105VR is the king IMO. the 200mm Macro is probably better for only macro, but the 105VR is a spectacular portriat lens as well.

A ring flash works well, the R1 works better. I have used both and if you have the money the R1 with a couple of extra flashes on the 105VR is amazing. You cand get teh R1 and use a SB unit as the commander (I sold my SU-800, didn't ever use it). Just dial the SB unit way down if you don't want it to contribute.

Add a set of Kenko Af tubes and you have just about everything that you ever should for macro.

paddler4

A lot of us avoid ring lights because they create flat lighting. Here is an example of a DIY rig from the macro forum:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=196571

The forum moderator (goldenorfe) recently posted his new rig, which I largely copied, but I can't find the posting. I believe Lord V on that forum has posted some too. The idea is to get highly diffused flash near the end of the lens. These DIY rigs usually have a single head, and if you have a flash already, they are cheap.