Recommendations for a closeup lens for Nikon camera

Jim McClain

A friend of mine has this garden, see, and I wanted to take some pictures of some of the plants. The problem I ran into was the very close quarters around the edges of the garden and neither of my lenses was suitable for some of the best looking plants.

Here are 2 pictures I got with my 16.0-85.0 mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor. It's supposed to have a minimum focus distance of 1.3', but at 55mm (first pic) and 80mm (second pic), the camera wouldn't focus and I could not get the shutter to release for any distance under 2' away. I guess I was about 3' away from the first plant and 2' and a few inches from the second.





Now hold on... these are legal plants in CA under the medical pot statute. And they really do belong to my friend. I don't want to get side-tracked though, so back to why I am posting this. These just happen to be the only closeups I have shot since getting this camera and lenses.

I may want to get a good lens capable of closeups. I'm not sure it has to be a macro/micro lens, but to have that capability might not be bad. My current camera is a D5300, but I hope I will be able to upgrade that to a full-frame at some point - maybe the new, rumored D750, or whatever camera comes that has an articulating LCD monitor (this is not a feature just for beginners, but is especially desirable for those of us with mobility issues).

There is a AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED that looks like it might fit my specifications, but I still consider myself quite inexperienced with these kinds of lenses. I feel like I have gotten 2 real decent lenses so far (AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR & AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED), but not without a lot of research.

Your thoughts and opinions would be appreciated.

Jim

basflt

The Nikkor Micro 105mm is a very good choice

Sigma Macro lenses are very good too ,if not better

For close-up purposes ; stay away from zoom lenses ; a real macro lens is always a prime

puzzledpaul

Depends what you're after ... if you want to get into macro big time, then certainly consider a macro lens of some sort.

I'd also suggest trying / using extension tubes with the lenses you already have, which would be relatively inexpensive and can be used with a whole range of gear (I've used mine with a 500 f4, for instance)

I've no idea about the IQ of the (zoom) lenses you mention, but some zooms, eg latest versions of 70 - 200 2.8 are stellar performers, by all accounts... and my old Canon f4 version isn't too bad either ... including being used with tubes.

Many yrs ago I used to use a 100 - 300 f5.6 L with tubes for close-up pics ... and found the zooming aspect useful for certain type of situations.

Canon's mpe65 is, of course, a zoom ... which I assume Bas forgot about here
Iirc, Nikon used to make a MF zoom macro too, which, by all accounts, wasn't too shabby either ...

pp

basflt

^^
An MPE-65 is NOT a zoom lens

puzzledpaul

basflt wrote: »

^^
An MPE-65 is NOT a zoom lens

Something else in life I can add to the (long) list of things I got wrong ... thx

pp

time2smile

Tokina 100 f2.8 micro.......for Nikon.......

Jim McClain

Now that I've slept on this, I realize the 105mm Nikkor would be too long a focal length for the type of pictures I used as examples. I might be able to get closer to the plants, but the 105mm wouldn't allow me to fit a whole bud in the frame. I might have to consider something with shorter focal length, like a 60 or even 35mm. You see, I like how the bud fills the picture in the second shot, but the plants in the row closer to me were better looking and too close to me for a picture with my lens. I was backed up against a fence already.

I haven't checked the comparisons on the 105 or any other macro type lens yet, but all the comparisons I researched when I was looking for the 2 lenses I currently own, Nikkors came out ahead in quality.

Jim

basflt

Jim McClain wrote: »

Now that I've slept on this, I realize the 105mm Nikkor would be too long a focal length for the type of pictures I used as examples. I might be able to get closer to the plants, but the 105mm wouldn't allow me to fit a whole bud in the frame.
Jim

Depends on the size .
You can do a step backwards to get it in the frame .
The working distance goes from one feet to infinite.
I see that in U.S. you also have shorter micro lenses from Nikkor ; the 40mm version goes from 0.5 feet to infinite.

edit ;
speaking of working distance ;
This is from a 150mm Sigma macro ( handheld) http://basflt.smugmug.com/Myphotos/wildlife/Wildlife/i-rGXPDnR/0/X3/DSC_9360-X3.jpg

troopers

I use the Nikon 60/2.8 micro and love it...found the IQ to better than the 105.

Sand

Not that I know much, but this sounds like an opportunity for a wide angle lens to me. Either something like a 12-24 zoom or a prime in that range. Maybe you could try the 16 - 85 at the wide end of the zoom.

Jim McClain

Or just use this as an opportunity to get part-1 of the holy trinity, the NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S ED. Although the 12-24mm Nikkor has a slightly shorter minimum focus distance, it is a DX lens. If I upgrade to a full-frame Nikon, I would be disappointed. I already have the 16-85mm, which has a focus distance min. of 1.3' (I think it's more than that) and my failure to get the shot with that lens is why I started this thread.

The 14-24mm f/2.8 reviews are so much better than anything else in its category, that would have to be my choice, if I were to get a zoom lens, I think. I do have to take into consideration my lack of mobility (lung disease keeps me from moving around a lot). I can't "zoom" with my feet as easily as some.

But maybe I should consider extension tubes for now. I looked into those and the cost is reasonable for quality tubes. The Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set (12, 20 & 36mm) for Nikon Cameras is about 200 bucks at my favorite camera store and apparently has no perceptible affect on the quality of an image. These would work on any Nikon lens now and into the foreseeable future.

Jim

Icebear

IMO, the best bang for your buck would be the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Di Macro. Not only is it a superb macro lens, it's a good portrait lens, and most reviewers have said it outperforms or equals the 105 Nikkor. YMMV but $500 for the Tamron made more sense to me than $900 for the Nikkor.

e6filmuser

Jim McClain wrote: »

Now that I've slept on this, I realize the 105mm Nikkor would be too long a focal length for the type of pictures I used as examples. I might be able to get closer to the plants, but the 105mm wouldn't allow me to fit a whole bud in the frame. I might have to consider something with shorter focal length, like a 60 or even 35mm. You see, I like how the bud fills the picture in the second shot, but the plants in the row closer to me were better looking and too close to me for a picture with my lens. I was backed up against a fence already.

I haven't checked the comparisons on the 105 or any other macro type lens yet, but all the comparisons I researched when I was looking for the 2 lenses I currently own, Nikkors came out ahead in quality.

I recommend an Achromat/Apochromat (same thing) supplementary such as a Raynox or Marumi Achromat.

Harold

e6filmuser

Here is an image from a supplementary on an X-Pan lens



E-P2, X-Pan 90mm, Marumi +3, 1/500 f8 -0.7EV ISO 200. Image cropped vertically.

Harold

ziggy53

e6filmuser wrote: »

... Achromat/Apochromat (same thing) ...

These two terms are not synonymous, but they are related in optical chromatic correction. Specifically, an "Achromat" lens design corrects for 2 wavelengths of light, often red and blue, sufficiently to focus both onto a single plane.

An "Apochromat" is able to bring Red-Green-Blue wavelengths into coincident focus onto a single plane.

For a very good scientific explanation of the two terms by Dr. Hannfried Zügge, who is the group manager at Carl Zeiss optical design department:

http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/achromat.html

---

I too recommend using an achromatic diopter accessory lens to provide nearly macro close-up capability to a lens which is otherwise not as capable. Specifically I use:

Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 with a Sony VCL-3358 which has a 330mm diopter value. (A 330mm diopter value simply means that with the host lens set to infinity focus, the diopter will allow prime focus at a distance of 330mm to the subject.)

I use a Canon 500D in 77mm size for both the 70-200mm, f2.8 and the 70-200mm, f4 versions of that lens. The f4 version requires a 67mm-77mm step-up ring, of course.

While both of the above close-up diopter lenses work nicely, neither provides a true 1:1 macro capability.

If a true macro lens is required, or desired, I can recommend the Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 Macro lens in one of its generations. They can often be found in a used condition and are relatively inexpensive. This lens provides a true 1:1 macro capability, and the 90mm focal length is suitable for many other tasks as well.

I have an older version of the Tamron SP 90mm, f2.8 true Macro, and I am very pleased with it. The only observation is that the front element of the Tamron is fairly well recessed, making the lens a little more intimidating for some timid insects and making cleaning a little more difficult than with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (for instance). It is also pretty slow to focus, so action photography is not really suitable with this lens.

e6filmuser

Thanks for the info, ziggy. The makers can be a bit vague about such terms and where they apply. Essentially, be aware that Marumi make two series of dioptre lenses, the Achromat being the better ones. Of course, these will not upgrade the performance of a prime lens of indifferent quality.

Harold