Some Macro, but still not happy

agspecialties

I shot these with a D600 with a Sigma 180 F3.5 macro lens. I am not that happy with the lens. It seems like I can't get close enough with it. I used to have a Canon 100 F2.8 macro and wow that lens was great, but now I am with Nikon.
Anyway here are some from yesterday. CC's are welcomed.

macromeister

I'm a little confused as to why you changed from Canon to Nikon, and I only ask as you seem unhappy with your own results. Although all photography genres requires careful effort, I think macro especially requires technique and effort. Changing camera makes isn't really going to help that process. Or have I missed something? You are right, the Canon 100mm macro is a great lens (I have the latest Mk2 version) - so why Nikon?

agspecialties

macromeister wrote: »

I'm a little confused as to why you changed from Canon to Nikon, and I only ask as you seem unhappy with your own results. Although all photography genres requires careful effort, I think macro especially requires technique and effort. Changing camera makes isn't really going to help that process. Or have I missed something? You are right, the Canon 100mm macro is a great lens (I have the latest Mk2 version) - so why Nikon?

I love my Nikon, I was unhappy with Canon when it came to sports and wildlife. As far as Macro, I am not happy with the sigma lens that I have. I am looking for a different lens for macro. This 180 macro just isn't cutting it.

Lord Vetinari

Well these look pretty good. Not sure what you mean by not getting close enough. Do you know if you were shooting at 1:1 (ie min focus ) or are you using autofocus?
Brian V.

macromeister

agspecialties wrote: »

I love my Nikon, I was unhappy with Canon when it came to sports and wildlife. As far as Macro, I am not happy with the sigma lens that I have. I am looking for a different lens for macro. This 180 macro just isn't cutting it.

The Canon 100mm macro (have one) is excellent http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2 I've also heard that the Nikon 105 is excellent http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=12 If you look at the two lists in those links you can see that overall there is very little difference in the quality of all prime lenses between Canon and Nikon. The macro lenses are about the same. The sigma doesn't sound quite so good http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=38 although the 150mm sounds better. The build quality of Sigma can be good, but they can also be heavy. Perhaps that is your problem - camera shake? The 180mm isn't a DG lens, so the quality probably won't be as good.

GOLDENORFE

i don't think the problem is with the lens as such ,but the longer focal length is more suited to larger subjects like butterflies and dragonflies. the bright sun in your shots is blowing out detail which is the main problem, focus could be better though but longer focal length will be harder to use/focus than the shorter 100mm , manual focus will be better than auto.
take a look at the tamron 90mm which has really good reviews .

Trikster

I have two of the manual focus Nikon offerings in the macro range, both are 55mm. I have heard that the "best" macro lens of the modern line of lenses is the 60mm/2.8. If you need more working distance, then look at the 105. It is a shame that Nikon doesn't have something like the Canon MPE that goes up to 5x, but with tubes, it can be done with Nikon.

agspecialties

These where shot with Auto Focus. I had a mind fart a little bit when I bought this lens. I was happy with a 100mm macro, so I just thought that a 180 would get me closer. Not the case that I have learned. Now I do have tubes, but holy shit, that is hard to use with this length of lens. So I am looking at different lens now, and just haven't made up my mind yet on which one to get.

Lord Vetinari I love looking at your pictures. They are amazing. That is what I am trying to get to. I would like to stack photos of a bugs eye, but I guess I am just lost of what I need to do it. Like I said I have tubes and this 180 macro, but I sometimes have better luck with tubes and my 1.4 50mm lens.

Thanks for the input guys.

Lord Vetinari

agspecialties wrote: »

These where shot with Auto Focus. I had a mind fart a little bit when I bought this lens. I was happy with a 100mm macro, so I just thought that a 180 would get me closer. Not the case that I have learned. Now I do have tubes, but holy shit, that is hard to use with this length of lens. So I am looking at different lens now, and just haven't made up my mind yet on which one to get.

Lord Vetinari I love looking at your pictures. They are amazing. That is what I am trying to get to. I would like to stack photos of a bugs eye, but I guess I am just lost of what I need to do it. Like I said I have tubes and this 180 macro, but I sometimes have better luck with tubes and my 1.4 50mm lens.

Thanks for the input guys.

You are better off with a shorter focal length lens if you want to get more magnification using ext tubes (you get more magnification). A macro lens around 100mm with a full set of ext tubes allows you to get to 2:1 mag.
As you found out 1:1 macro lenses all have the same max magnification but do have different minimum working distances.
Brian v.