I did not use a tripod, it would have been extremely difficult to keep myself up the counter and a tripod too...
I could easily do macro with my minolta handheld, and they were rasor sharp.
I don't even see to good if the moth is really sharp.
I should have kept my minolta for macro probably...
Anyway, I guess it all comes down to learn your camera and find out in the long rum what works and what doesn't.
The nikon has also to be on 80 mm to be able to do macro, so not much DOF...
I used shutterspeed 1/320, aperture of 10
You probably could have stopped down the aperture a couple of stops and still had a reasonable shutter speed. This would increase your depth of field. Also try sharpening technique such as the unsharp mask in photoshop.
I saw the moth this morning. Went out to take some shots.
They were very dull.
Later in the day, the sun came out, and again I went out to do some moth shots, nothing spectacular...
Finally, I went into the kitchen and saw the moth counterlight, and there it was, the shot I wanted.
I had to climb on the counter, (if you know that i move like a 90 year old, although I am fourthysomething), you will notice that this climbing took me some time, grin, but finally I managed to take some pics of the moth on the window.
I have the impression though that my shots are not as sharp as I had them with my minolta dimage 7I. I used the nikon d70 with the 28-200mm, macro setting.
Is that the sharpest I can get?
Some cameras tend to focus on a glass surface that is in front of a subject (not sure if this is true for the D70, but it looks like it might be true here)
It seems to me that the feet are the sharpest part of this image and that the further from the glass surface the softer it becomes. If you have this type of shot in the future, I think I would try one shot with manual focus as well. f10 seems adequate to me if you were in focus on the thorax or antennea, but f16 would be better of course.
Some zooms are not the best lens for macro work either as they are not optimized for near, but more for intermediate and distance work. I recently shot some butterflies with a Canon 70-300 IS DO, and altho the lens gets good reviews, the images are not as sharp as I have been obtaining with a 180 Tamron macro. The images are not soft, just not tack sharp like a good macro lens provides.
Some cameras tend to focus on a glass surface that is in front of a subject (not sure if this is true for the D70, but it looks like it might be true here)
The Nikon D70 has 3 focus area modes, one closest object, one centered, and a third one I can't remember right now.
What I want is to always use the centered focus area, cause then I know where to point my camera.
I have set the camera on center focus a dozen times already, but at some point it looses that setting and goes back to closest subject. Which drives me totally nuts.
So that might be why the paws are indeed as you say sharp, but not the wings...
And I only have the 28-70 sigma lens, or the 300 lens one, both are zooms.
I do not have a fixed focus lens.
I don't see any good use of the closest subject focus mode, cause the camere decides where to focus, and I don't want that. It bugs me tremendously...
Thanks for your input and if someone could enlighten m about the setting and keeping the setting of the area, I would be pleased.
okay, pathfinder.. today, i went to b&h and amongst other things, i bought myself a canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.
now, can you give me some pointers?
I own a Canon 100mm macro also - and as for pointers - look around your backporch - I found this critter on my back porch yesterday and he agreed to pose for me ..... Lighting was with the Canon MR-14EX ringflash and a 20D body
I own a Canon 100mm macro also - and as for pointers - look around your backporch - I found this critter on my back porch yesterday and he agreed to pose for me ..... Lighting was with the Canon MR-14EX ringflash and a 20D body
Some cameras tend to focus on a glass surface that is in front of a subject (not sure if this is true for the D70, but it looks like it might be true here)
Some zooms are not the best lens for macro work either as they are not optimized for near, but more for intermediate and distance work. I recently shot some butterflies with a Canon 70-300 IS DO, and altho the lens gets good reviews, the images are not as sharp as I have been obtaining with a 180 Tamron macro. The images are not soft, just not tack sharp like a good macro lens provides.
My CAnon 70-300 gets softer by the day. I bought it in February, had good luck, either that or everything was actually out of focus which made it in focus, or some convoluted thing.
I use it infrequently, but I have been shooting so much lately that I am very well acquainted with that lens by now. I used it today. I am wondering if I should just figure my scratched up 28-135 IS, I think that is the focal length, it gets much better focus. I do not get razor sharp with the 70-300, much better with any other lens.
I was warned on dPreview, I have not read all that many good reviews, but that was back in February.
My CAnon 70-300 gets softer by the day. I bought it in February, had good luck, either that or everything was actually out of focus which made it in focus, or some convoluted thing.
I use it infrequently, but I have been shooting so much lately that I am very well acquainted with that lens by now. I used it today. I am wondering if I should just figure my scratched up 28-135 IS, I think that is the focal length, it gets much better focus. I do not get razor sharp with the 70-300, much better with any other lens.
I was warned on dPreview, I have not read all that many good reviews, but that was back in February.
ginger
The Canon 70-300 IS you own is not the same lens as the 70-300 DO IS that was introduced just this last year. The older 70-300 IS 4.5 -5.6 has been around for several years and is a nice consumer grade lens, but it is not critically sharp in the corners at maximum aperature and at the long end of its zoom. Nonetheless is it a serviceable optic.
Unless the lens has been dropped or had a misadventure I doubt it is getting less sharp, but more likely you have become more critical in evaluation of lens sharpness. Some of my first hummingbird shots were done with the same 70-300 IS you are using and i thought they were pretty good until I saw what was possible with modern first rate optics. Just make sure to use it at aperature smallerr than f8 at the long end of its zoom will help a lot - raise your ISO, rather than opening up the aperature for that particular lens.
Extension tubes
What are the downsides to extension tubes? I would like to reduce the minimum focusing distance of my Canon 50mm/1.4 to below 12" (from about 1.6'). Less if possible. And to reduce the minimum focusing distance of my 70-200/2.8 to below 24" (from about 5'). Are tubes a good way to go? Or am I better off with a 100mm/2.8 macro and a 50mm/2.5 macro?
I cannot speak to the reasons to buy the lenses you ask about. I do not have any of them.
I have a set of extension tubes. They are made by Kenko. All of my camera's functions work with the extension tubes in place. I have found nothing about them I didn't like. The set of three tubes was about 150 bucks if I recall. They take up about the same amount of room in the bag as a 200mm f4 lens.
They do not have an impact on lens quality as they have no glass in them at all. The optics are as good as whatever lens you put on them.
Here are some shots I used them for.
I am happy with them. I dont use them a lot, but when you put them on, its hard to stop shooting tiny stuff.
I cannot speak to the reasons to buy the lenses you ask about. I do not have any of them.
I have a set of extension tubes. They are made by Kenko. All of my camera's functions work with the extension tubes in place. I have found nothing about them I didn't like. The set of three tubes was about 150 bucks if I recall. They take up about the same amount of room in the bag as a 200mm f4 lens.
They do not have an impact on lens quality as they have no glass in them at all. The optics are as good as whatever lens you put on them.
Here are some shots I used them for.
I am happy with them. I dont use them a lot, but when you put them on, its hard to stop shooting tiny stuff.
Great photos. Now.....can you expain what the heck an exstension tube is and why I would want one? How does it do anything for your camera if it doesn't have any glass?
Does it move the lens away from the sensor some how allowing the distance from lens to subject to be reduced?
Great photos. Now.....can you expain what the heck an exstension tube is and why I would want one? How does it do anything for your camera if it doesn't have any glass?
Does it move the lens away from the sensor some how allowing the distance from lens to subject to be reduced?
Thanks,
Sam
Pretty much...
Yes it is a tube that has a lens mount on one end and a body mount on the other. It has electrical contacts to carry the needed signals from the body to the lens. It changes the distance from the sensor/film to the glass which reduces the minimum focus distance without changing the focal length.
I cannot speak to the reasons to buy the lenses you ask about. I do not have any of them.
I have a set of extension tubes. They are made by Kenko. All of my camera's functions work with the extension tubes in place. I have found nothing about them I didn't like. The set of three tubes was about 150 bucks if I recall. They take up about the same amount of room in the bag as a 200mm f4 lens.
They do not have an impact on lens quality as they have no glass in them at all. The optics are as good as whatever lens you put on them.
Here are some shots I used them for.
I am happy with them. I dont use them a lot, but when you put them on, its hard to stop shooting tiny stuff.
Extension tubes hold the lens farther in front of the image sensor plane or the film plane - and you are correct, Greaper, that there are no optical elements introduced into the light path. This does not mean, however, that a normal 50mm lens can be extended way out without any effect on the quality of the image. If there were no effect on the image quality, why would the manufacturers make 50mm macro lenses - and no, it is not only for more sales.
50mm Macro lenses will be much sharper than standard 50mm lenses as you approach 1:1 (subject - image size at the film plane) - particularly in the far corners of the images. One of the reasons you are getting such lovely images, Greaper, is that you are using a full frame lens on a APS sensor and thus not using the far periphery of the lens image elements. If the lens is to be really extended, macro enthusiasts reverse a normal lens - ie; hook it up to the extension tubes backwards as this minimizes the loss of sharpness in the corners of the frame.
Modest use of extension tubes does not degrade images very much at all at modest aperature, but if you try to shoot very close to subjects there will be a loss of sharpness in the corners - Whereas - the Canon 100 macro will not display that in its images. Extension tubes are light, small, and inexpensive relative to first rate macro lenses but will not replace them for all purposes.
Extension tubes are very useful to allow closer focusing with telephotos, as for shooting butterflies with a 300mm lens with extension tubes. The tradeoff is that you give up focusing at distance until the extension tubes are removed.
There is a great discussion of macro equipment in a very beautiful book by Gilles Martin entitled "Macrophotography - Learning from a Master" This is a gorgeously produced color portfolio by Gilles Martin, and I suspect he is one of the best of his craft in the entire world. Truly a master - his images are just stupendous and awe inspiring.
And I agree with you Greaper, that when you start inspecting the small things around you, you find all sorts of new beatiful things to shoot.
Tubes
So, I've decided I'd like to have some tubes. But I can't find information about how much they affect the minimum focusing distance. My 70-200/2.8L will focus down to 1.4m if memory serves. But how do I find out what the new minimum focusing distance will be with a given tube? Its what is keeping me from buying a tube rather than a 100/2.8 macro lens.
I have a Nikon D70 and want a good close-up lens - Nikon USA lists 3 -
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor (retails ~$360)
105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor (retails ~$580)
200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor (retails ~$5,000)
Am I limited to these choices? And if so is it worth it to save up for the 105mm. The 200 is way past a reasonable/acceptable price range.
Thanks!
lr1811
I think I'd probably go for the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro lens, as Dave suggests. It costs about $450, if I'm not mistaken, and, to these old eyes of mine, it looks sharper than the 105mm Nikkor. The Tamron is on my lens lust list, for sure!
I also wouldn't forget about the 200mm f/4 Micro, since it doesn't cost anywhere near $5k (more like $1,350). Not only the extra working distance you get with the 200mm is great, but also it's probably the sharpest macro lens you can get. It's WAY high on my lens lust list.
I guess my first question should have been what do you want to do with the lens? That will play a big part in what you want to get.
Dave
I just want to be able to take good up close (good magnification) photos without feeling like I have to be 2 inches from my subject. I've also read these have good portrait applications.
I was way off on the price of that 200mm hu!? But still, over $1,000 is too much.
I looked at the Tamron 90mm and saw it on ebay for $400. Is this a better lens than the Nikkor 105mm (which appears to be cheaper)?
dkappThiago Sigrist I will along with them Tamron 90mm just went today looking at camera shop and this is what he gave me advice to buy . ck out the photos by both these guys and their advice is well taken
I think I'd probably go for the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro lens, as Dave suggests. It costs about $450, if I'm not mistaken, and, to these old eyes of mine, it looks sharper than the 105mm Nikkor. The Tamron is on my lens lust list, for sure!
I also wouldn't forget about the 200mm f/4 Micro, since it doesn't cost anywhere near $5k (more like $1,350). Not only the extra working distance you get with the 200mm is great, but also it's probably the sharpest macro lens you can get. It's WAY high on my lens lust list.
Hope I could help! :-)
Take care!
-- thiago
I think Thiagos advice is excellent.
I still own a Tamron 90 mm Macro in a T mount on a Nikon FM3a and it is an excellent lens at about $400. The Tamron 90 macro has gotten very good reviews for the last 20 years. There are excellent discussions of it on photo.net and photo.do - Googling should locate them for you. The 60mm Nikon macro also is excellent and on a D70 1.5 mag factor would work well for portraits.
I also suggest you give serious consideration to the Tamron 180 f3.5 Di Macro. It is very sharp and has excellent contrast. It may be a little long for portraits, but the extra distance form the subject helps give nice shallow DOF to isolate butterlies from their background. It is about $800 but once you shoot with the longer macros you never want to return to the shorter ones.
This was shot with the 180 Tamron Di
And this too.
Ir1811 - You said you own a Nikon D70 but not any other lenses. An inexpensive way to shoot macro is to use onne of your existing lenses with a screw in filter macro adapter. Both Canon and Nikon make these and I think you could buy from either brand as theyjust screw into the filter thread on the front of your lens. Canon makes a 250D and a 500D in several thread sizes 58mm ( fits a Canon 100 macro ) and a 72 mm and I believe a 77mm.
These adapters are NOT simple one piece lenses but nicely corrected two elements adapters that act like a bifocal lens for a camera lens. But they work pretty well. My avatar was shot using an adapter like this. They generally are under $100 and are a nice way to get started in macro for little money.
Extension tubes are another alternative that is inexpensive and allows great image captures. Greaper here on dgrin has done a fair amount of posting with extension tube shots.
The macro forum on FredMiranda has an excellent discussion of the various options for macro shooters. Lots of alternatives to consider.
Enjoy ( very close up ) photography - kudos to Andy
I still own a Tamron 90 mm Macro in a T mount on a Nikon FM3a and it is an excellent lens at about $400. The Tamron 90 macro has gotten very good reviews for the last 20 years. There are excellent discussions of it on photo.net and photo.do - Googling should locate them for you. The 60mm Nikon macro also is excellent and on a D70 1.5 mag factor would work well for portraits.
I also suggest you give serious consideration to the Tamron 180 f3.5 Di Macro. It is very sharp and has excellent contrast. It may be a little long for portraits, but the extra distance form the subject helps give nice shallow DOF to isolate butterlies from their background. It is about $800 but once you shoot with the longer macros you never want to return to the shorter ones.
This was shot with the 180 Tamron Di
And this too.
Ir1811 - You said you own a Nikon D70 but not any other lenses. An inexpensive way to shoot macro is to use onne of your existing lenses with a screw in filter macro adapter. Both Canon and Nikon make these and I think you could buy from either brand as theyjust screw into the filter thread on the front of your lens. Canon makes a 250D and a 500D in several thread sizes 58mm ( fits a Canon 100 macro ) and a 72 mm and I believe a 77mm.
These adapters are NOT simple one piece lenses but nicely corrected two elements adapters that act like a bifocal lens for a camera lens. But they work pretty well. My avatar was shot using an adapter like this. They generally are under $100 and are a nice way to get started in macro for little money.
Extension tubes are another alternative that is inexpensive and allows great image captures. Greaper here on dgrin has done a fair amount of posting with extension tube shots.
The macro forum on FredMiranda has an excellent discussion of the various options for macro shooters. Lots of alternatives to consider.
Enjoy ( very close up ) photography - kudos to Andy
What was your distance in those photos? Now I want to save up for the 180. @#$% you people, you think I'm made of money!!!
I have the 18-70mm that came with the camera and I purchased a 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 and a 50mm 1:1.8D.
I saw some awesome photos recently (like your butterfly), and decided that I wanted to do that and thought I'd get a lens for that purpose.
All my Christmas money is gone, now I need to save up and I want to get the right lens. I'd like to see the difference in the 90 and 180 - too see if it really is worth $400 more.
What was your distance in those photos? Now I want to save up for the 180. @#$% you people, you think I'm made of money!!!
I have the 18-70mm that came with the camera and I purchased a 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 and a 50mm 1:1.8D.
I saw some awesome photos recently (like your butterfly), and decided that I wanted to do that and thought I'd get a lens for that purpose.
All my Christmas money is gone, now I need to save up and I want to get the right lens. I'd like to see the difference in the 90 and 180 - too see if it really is worth $400 more.
Thanks all!
lr1811
You seem to have ignored my suggestion that you consider a screw in macro adapter like the Canon 250D or 500D. The are simply like "bifocals" for your existing camera lens and allow it to focus closer. But they are pretty good optically ( they are 2 elements not one ) and they cost about $75- $125 I think. You can read about the 250D here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=87491&is=REG
Another inexpensive alternative to a new macro lens is a good set of extension tubes. Greaper does quite a bit with extension tubes as I mentioned earlier. You can see some of his work here all shot with a 50mm lens like yours and extension tubes I believe. http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2544&highlight=Greaper
The 180mm lens is usually about 18 inches to 3 feet from the butterfly but it can focus to infinity as well. I caught this hawk while I was hunting butterflies with the Tamron 180 macro
I don't think you will see any difference in quality of image between the 90 mm macros and the 180 mm macros. The biggest difference is that the 90s tend to be f2.8 and the 180s are a little slower at f3.5 The real advantage of the 180 is the stand off distance so that you don't alarm the subject - Butterfiles tend to be flighty - they do not like to be crowded or they will fly away. It is easier to shoot butterflies with the 180 than the 100, because once they take flight it is almost impossible to follow them with a macro lens and its shallow depth of field.
Here is an image shot with Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro - an excellent lens that costs about the same as the Tamron 180. They both are very crisp lenses.
Canon makes a 180 macro as well, but it about twice the price of the Tamron, but for that money you get significantly faster focusing and quieter focusing.
Good lenses cost money - no doubt about it - But there are things you can do with good tools that you just cannot do with cheaper tools. We all wish that were not true, but it is. A good lens will almost live forever if you take care of it and don't drop it or mistreat it. Think of it as an investment
Is the 180 better than the 90, depends on what you plan to do with it. For beetles and mantises it probably does not matter - but for butterflies or moths or flies I think it does.
Comments
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
Some cameras tend to focus on a glass surface that is in front of a subject (not sure if this is true for the D70, but it looks like it might be true here)
It seems to me that the feet are the sharpest part of this image and that the further from the glass surface the softer it becomes. If you have this type of shot in the future, I think I would try one shot with manual focus as well. f10 seems adequate to me if you were in focus on the thorax or antennea, but f16 would be better of course.
Some zooms are not the best lens for macro work either as they are not optimized for near, but more for intermediate and distance work. I recently shot some butterflies with a Canon 70-300 IS DO, and altho the lens gets good reviews, the images are not as sharp as I have been obtaining with a 180 Tamron macro. The images are not soft, just not tack sharp like a good macro lens provides.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
how's the new macro lens panning out ? Got any shots to share yet ?
David
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
nope. well, nothing share-worthy, yet
thanks
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I own a Canon 100mm macro also - and as for pointers - look around your backporch - I found this critter on my back porch yesterday and he agreed to pose for me ..... Lighting was with the Canon MR-14EX ringflash and a 20D body
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
splendid!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I use it infrequently, but I have been shooting so much lately that I am very well acquainted with that lens by now. I used it today. I am wondering if I should just figure my scratched up 28-135 IS, I think that is the focal length, it gets much better focus. I do not get razor sharp with the 70-300, much better with any other lens.
I was warned on dPreview, I have not read all that many good reviews, but that was back in February.
ginger
Unless the lens has been dropped or had a misadventure I doubt it is getting less sharp, but more likely you have become more critical in evaluation of lens sharpness. Some of my first hummingbird shots were done with the same 70-300 IS you are using and i thought they were pretty good until I saw what was possible with modern first rate optics. Just make sure to use it at aperature smallerr than f8 at the long end of its zoom will help a lot - raise your ISO, rather than opening up the aperature for that particular lens.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Thank you ... Thank you..... Here is another with the same Canon 100mm Macro...
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
What are the downsides to extension tubes? I would like to reduce the minimum focusing distance of my Canon 50mm/1.4 to below 12" (from about 1.6'). Less if possible. And to reduce the minimum focusing distance of my 70-200/2.8 to below 24" (from about 5'). Are tubes a good way to go? Or am I better off with a 100mm/2.8 macro and a 50mm/2.5 macro?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
I have a set of extension tubes. They are made by Kenko. All of my camera's functions work with the extension tubes in place. I have found nothing about them I didn't like. The set of three tubes was about 150 bucks if I recall. They take up about the same amount of room in the bag as a 200mm f4 lens.
They do not have an impact on lens quality as they have no glass in them at all. The optics are as good as whatever lens you put on them.
Here are some shots I used them for.
I am happy with them. I dont use them a lot, but when you put them on, its hard to stop shooting tiny stuff.
Does it move the lens away from the sensor some how allowing the distance from lens to subject to be reduced?
Thanks,
Sam
Pretty much...
Yes it is a tube that has a lens mount on one end and a body mount on the other. It has electrical contacts to carry the needed signals from the body to the lens. It changes the distance from the sensor/film to the glass which reduces the minimum focus distance without changing the focal length.
50mm Macro lenses will be much sharper than standard 50mm lenses as you approach 1:1 (subject - image size at the film plane) - particularly in the far corners of the images. One of the reasons you are getting such lovely images, Greaper, is that you are using a full frame lens on a APS sensor and thus not using the far periphery of the lens image elements. If the lens is to be really extended, macro enthusiasts reverse a normal lens - ie; hook it up to the extension tubes backwards as this minimizes the loss of sharpness in the corners of the frame.
Modest use of extension tubes does not degrade images very much at all at modest aperature, but if you try to shoot very close to subjects there will be a loss of sharpness in the corners - Whereas - the Canon 100 macro will not display that in its images. Extension tubes are light, small, and inexpensive relative to first rate macro lenses but will not replace them for all purposes.
Extension tubes are very useful to allow closer focusing with telephotos, as for shooting butterflies with a 300mm lens with extension tubes. The tradeoff is that you give up focusing at distance until the extension tubes are removed.
There is a great discussion of macro equipment in a very beautiful book by Gilles Martin entitled "Macrophotography - Learning from a Master" This is a gorgeously produced color portfolio by Gilles Martin, and I suspect he is one of the best of his craft in the entire world. Truly a master - his images are just stupendous and awe inspiring.
And I agree with you Greaper, that when you start inspecting the small things around you, you find all sorts of new beatiful things to shoot.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sam
So, I've decided I'd like to have some tubes. But I can't find information about how much they affect the minimum focusing distance. My 70-200/2.8L will focus down to 1.4m if memory serves. But how do I find out what the new minimum focusing distance will be with a given tube? Its what is keeping me from buying a tube rather than a 100/2.8 macro lens.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
INFO
I have a Nikon D70 and want a good close-up lens - Nikon USA lists 3 -
60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor (retails ~$360)
105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor (retails ~$580)
200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor (retails ~$5,000)
Am I limited to these choices? And if so is it worth it to save up for the 105mm. The 200 is way past a reasonable/acceptable price range.
Thanks!
lr1811
Tamron makes a 90mm that is dynamite. I'd say that would be a great choice.
I think Sigma makes something around 105mm too.
Dave
http://www.lifekapptured.com (gallery)
I think I'd probably go for the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro lens, as Dave suggests. It costs about $450, if I'm not mistaken, and, to these old eyes of mine, it looks sharper than the 105mm Nikkor. The Tamron is on my lens lust list, for sure!
I also wouldn't forget about the 200mm f/4 Micro, since it doesn't cost anywhere near $5k (more like $1,350). Not only the extra working distance you get with the 200mm is great, but also it's probably the sharpest macro lens you can get. It's WAY high on my lens lust list.
Hope I could help! :-)
Take care!
-- thiago
Dave
http://www.lifekapptured.com (gallery)
I was way off on the price of that 200mm hu!? But still, over $1,000 is too much.
I looked at the Tamron 90mm and saw it on ebay for $400. Is this a better lens than the Nikkor 105mm (which appears to be cheaper)?
Thanks!
lr1811
“PHOTOGRAPHY IS THE ‘JAZZ’ FOR THE EYES…”
http://jwear.smugmug.com/
I think Thiagos advice is excellent.
I still own a Tamron 90 mm Macro in a T mount on a Nikon FM3a and it is an excellent lens at about $400. The Tamron 90 macro has gotten very good reviews for the last 20 years. There are excellent discussions of it on photo.net and photo.do - Googling should locate them for you. The 60mm Nikon macro also is excellent and on a D70 1.5 mag factor would work well for portraits.
I also suggest you give serious consideration to the Tamron 180 f3.5 Di Macro. It is very sharp and has excellent contrast. It may be a little long for portraits, but the extra distance form the subject helps give nice shallow DOF to isolate butterlies from their background. It is about $800 but once you shoot with the longer macros you never want to return to the shorter ones.
This was shot with the 180 Tamron Di
And this too.
Ir1811 - You said you own a Nikon D70 but not any other lenses. An inexpensive way to shoot macro is to use onne of your existing lenses with a screw in filter macro adapter. Both Canon and Nikon make these and I think you could buy from either brand as theyjust screw into the filter thread on the front of your lens. Canon makes a 250D and a 500D in several thread sizes 58mm ( fits a Canon 100 macro ) and a 72 mm and I believe a 77mm.
These adapters are NOT simple one piece lenses but nicely corrected two elements adapters that act like a bifocal lens for a camera lens. But they work pretty well. My avatar was shot using an adapter like this. They generally are under $100 and are a nice way to get started in macro for little money.
Extension tubes are another alternative that is inexpensive and allows great image captures. Greaper here on dgrin has done a fair amount of posting with extension tube shots.
The macro forum on FredMiranda has an excellent discussion of the various options for macro shooters. Lots of alternatives to consider.
Enjoy ( very close up ) photography - kudos to Andy
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
What was your distance in those photos? Now I want to save up for the 180. @#$% you people, you think I'm made of money!!!
I have the 18-70mm that came with the camera and I purchased a 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 and a 50mm 1:1.8D.
I saw some awesome photos recently (like your butterfly), and decided that I wanted to do that and thought I'd get a lens for that purpose.
All my Christmas money is gone, now I need to save up and I want to get the right lens. I'd like to see the difference in the 90 and 180 - too see if it really is worth $400 more.
Thanks all!
lr1811
You seem to have ignored my suggestion that you consider a screw in macro adapter like the Canon 250D or 500D. The are simply like "bifocals" for your existing camera lens and allow it to focus closer. But they are pretty good optically ( they are 2 elements not one ) and they cost about $75- $125 I think. You can read about the 250D here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=87491&is=REG
and here
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=Canon+500D&image.x=0&image.y=0
Some pros use the 250D or the 500D on their telephotos to shoot buterflies. You just need to know the filter size of your lens. The Canon adapters will work on any lens - I just do not know the name of the similar adapter in Nikon land. Maybe one of the Nikonians online here can help us out.
Another inexpensive alternative to a new macro lens is a good set of extension tubes. Greaper does quite a bit with extension tubes as I mentioned earlier. You can see some of his work here all shot with a 50mm lens like yours and extension tubes I believe.
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2544&highlight=Greaper
The 180mm lens is usually about 18 inches to 3 feet from the butterfly but it can focus to infinity as well. I caught this hawk while I was hunting butterflies with the Tamron 180 macro
I don't think you will see any difference in quality of image between the 90 mm macros and the 180 mm macros. The biggest difference is that the 90s tend to be f2.8 and the 180s are a little slower at f3.5 The real advantage of the 180 is the stand off distance so that you don't alarm the subject - Butterfiles tend to be flighty - they do not like to be crowded or they will fly away. It is easier to shoot butterflies with the 180 than the 100, because once they take flight it is almost impossible to follow them with a macro lens and its shallow depth of field.
Here is an image shot with Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro - an excellent lens that costs about the same as the Tamron 180. They both are very crisp lenses.
Canon makes a 180 macro as well, but it about twice the price of the Tamron, but for that money you get significantly faster focusing and quieter focusing.
Good lenses cost money - no doubt about it - But there are things you can do with good tools that you just cannot do with cheaper tools. We all wish that were not true, but it is. A good lens will almost live forever if you take care of it and don't drop it or mistreat it. Think of it as an investment
Is the 180 better than the 90, depends on what you plan to do with it. For beetles and mantises it probably does not matter - but for butterflies or moths or flies I think it does.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin