Short or Medium Macro

SCS_Photo · December 23, 2005

Ok, I'm in the market for a Macro Lense for my D70. I've narrowed it down to two choices:

Tamron 90mm SP DI f/2.8

or

Sigma 50 mm DG f/2.8 Macro + Kenko Auto Extension Tube Set

Pros for tamron: Longer Working Distance for insects, doubles as a short telephoto, especially if i end up getting a TC. No loss of light due non-use of extension tubes.

Pros for Sigma: Doubles as a portrait lense, much more compact. Cheaper, and with ET offers more total magnification than the Tamron by itself.

Questions I have:

I've read that shorter focal length Macro lenses have more DOF, if this is true, would this be negated or helped by the use of extension tubes?

Could I place a teleconverter between extension tubes if I got the 50mm?

Exactly how much light loss is there using X mm worth of Extension tubes? Any easy ratios or something to figure this out?

And finally, which would you recommend?

P.S. I also plan on getting a Sigma EF-500 flash shortly after this purchase.

pathfinder · December 24, 2005

Another Hooser!! Welcome to dgrin.

If you search dgrin with the term macro, or 180mm macro, or 90mm macro I am sure you will fnd numerous threads about long and short macros, several with my signature on them.

Generally, the longer the focal length the lower the apparent DOF, and conversely, the shorter 50mm macros have greater DOF. Which is better depends on the shooters needs. Adding extension tubes increases mag but decreases DOF too. Smaller sensors ( APS) inherently have slightly greater DOF also, as opposed to FF cameras.

Many of the 50s are not as good optically as the 90-100mm lenses but this is a generality, not always an absolute fact. The Nikkor 60mm is stellar. I just sold mine recently.

There are other macros to consider as well, like the Tamron 90 which is rated very highly. I would also suggest the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro, or a Tamron 180 macro as well. The 200mm Micro Nikkor is a world standard of course.

pathfinder · December 24, 2005

I was at work and didn't have time to really address your question.

Here are a a number of threads re: macro and focal length that should answer it more completely.

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=23838&highlight=150mm+macro

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=3131&highlight=180mm+macro

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=13417&highlight=180mm+macro

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8793&highlight=180mm+macro

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=6299&highlight=180mm+macro

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=5708&highlight=180mm+macro

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2267&highlight=180mm+macro

Lord Vetinari · December 24, 2005

I've been told that the DOF of macro setups at equal magnification is the same no matter what the lens.

Fraid I would actually get the Tamron 90mm and the extension tubes if you are serious about macro. The extension tubes will allow you to go just over 2:1 with that lens and it's amazing how much detail you miss until you start shooting at around 1.5 or 2:1. The lens will also give you a reasonable focus distance even with extension rings.
Check my gallery for results I get with my 105mm EX macro and extension rings.
Brian V.

pathfinder · December 24, 2005

Lord Vetinari wrote:

I've been told that the DOF of macro setups at equal magnification is the same no matter what the lens.

Fraid I would actually get the Tamron 90mm and the extension tubes if you are serious about macro. The extension tubes will allow you to go just over 2:1 with that lens and it's amazing how much detail you miss until you start shooting at around 1.5 or 2:1. The lens will also give you a reasonable focus distance even with extension rings.
Check my gallery for results I get with my 105mm EX macro and extension rings.
Brian V.

Brian has very pollitely suggested a correction in my earlier posts, when I said " Generally, the longer the focal length the lower the apparent DOF, and conversely, the shorter 50mm macros have greater DOF" in a post a few frames up.

Brian is absolutely corrrect in that focal length TECHNICALLY has no effect on depth of field IF the subject is the ABSOLUTELY SAME SIZE in images shot with a 24mm, or a 50mm, or a 500mm lens. But of course, if the image of the subject is the same magnification with lenses from 24 to 500mm, then perspective WILL change very dramatically. and so will the APPARENT depth of field.

To verify the accuaracy of the above statement I quote two sources.

Page 116 of "The Camera" volume of the Life Library of Photography states "The shorter the focal length, the greater the depth of field" and then goes on tto show images of a cemetary shot with a 28mm and a 135mm lens. There is much greater apparent DOF with the shorter lens than the tele, but the subjects in the image ARE NOT the same magnification as mentioned by Brian.

Page 115 of "Macrophotography - Learning from a Master" by Gilles Martin says "Depth of field does not depend on the focal length of the lens used." This is correct when the subjects are the same size on the image plane again.

This is why the topic of DOF becomes confusing to so many shooters and has been discussed several times here on dgrin. As Brian said - DOF IS NOT a function of focal length AT THE SAME final image size. And that is correct. Nonetheless, it is MUCH easier to isolate a form against a blurred background with a long lens than it is with a short lens. That is one reason why portraits tend to be shot with 80 - 100mm, rather than an 18 or 21mm. Perspective also of course.

That is why I incuded the phrase APPARENT DOF in the above quoted phrase.

I hope this clears up any confusion I may have created with my earlier statements.

Matthew Saville · December 24, 2005

Lord Vetinari wrote:

I've been told that the DOF of macro setups at equal magnification is the same no matter what the lens.

You don't have to get to 1:1 reproduction to prove that this is not true. Simply take your widest focal length and your longest focal length, and then look through your camera at a subject. Make the subject a certain size within the viewfinder, such as the size of the "centerweight" circle if you have one. Then switch lenses, and try to duplicate that arbitrary reproduction that you had with the other lens. You will see that the wide lens should render the background much much more discernible.

Maybe I am wrong, but one thing that a wider focal length WILL do at 1:1 is give you a wider angle of view and therefore an APPARENTLY larger depth of field, which is very very useful knowledge to have in macro applications, and although I have the 150mm Sigma, I'm looking to get the 50mm Sigma to compliment it. But I'm just a macro nut, most people will only need one 1:1 lens...

-Matt-

SCS_Photo · December 24, 2005

Thanks for all the information. In practice I would like to use this lense as a studio lense just as much as a outdoor insect/flower macro lense. The only thing that concerns me about the Tamron is that it would be too long of a focal length for studio work. Conversely, I'd like enough working distance for live subjects, which I'm not sure the Sigma is long enough for. I wish their was like a 75mm Macro... I know someone over at DSLR who has the 60mm Micro and a set of ETs... I'll ask her opinion. LordV, how do you like your 105 for studio work?

Thanks again

Edit: To add... Great shots with the 150, matt. I happen to have a similar macro background as you. I started off with the F828, and like most P&S cameras, used its macro capability primarily on the wide end. Time to browse Pbase and get an idea of the apparent DOF with these two lenses...

-Sam

Lord Vetinari · December 27, 2005

SCS_Photo wrote:

Thanks for all the information. In practice I would like to use this lense as a studio lense just as much as a outdoor insect/flower macro lense. The only thing that concerns me about the Tamron is that it would be too long of a focal length for studio work. Conversely, I'd like enough working distance for live subjects, which I'm not sure the Sigma is long enough for. I wish their was like a 75mm Macro... I know someone over at DSLR who has the 60mm Micro and a set of ETs... I'll ask her opinion. LordV, how do you like your 105 for studio work?

Thanks again

Edit: To add... Great shots with the 150, matt. I happen to have a similar macro background as you. I started off with the F828, and like most P&S cameras, used its macro capability primarily on the wide end. Time to browse Pbase and get an idea of the apparent DOF with these two lenses...

-Sam

Can't say I do studio work but I quite often shoot closeup portraits of people at dinner parties etc with the 105mm- makes it possible just to isolate one head in a crowd.
Brian V.

Lord Vetinari · December 27, 2005

On the matter of DOF- I think we are all thinking the same way- on another forum I was talking about trying wider angle lenses to get better DOF, and someone made that statement about the DOF being the same. I then said something like- as the FOV magnification obviously reduces much faster with a wider angle lens doesn't that mean that the OOF elements will be more recognisable. So I think it's a problem with definition only and agree that the apparent DOF with a shorter lens at the same maginification is greater.
Brian V.

Seymore · December 27, 2005

Another option?
Hey Sam... just to add my $.02... I have the Nikkor 60/2.8 macro, and luv it. The working distance is a little short, compared to some others... but I've never been disappointed with the quality. All-in-all it's one of the best macros, from what I've heard, on the market. You may want to consider it if it's within your budget. Good luck with whatever you decide to get...

And some reading, if you'd like...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=63&sort=7&cat=12&page=1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_60mm_f_2_8D_Macro_Autofocus.html

Short or Medium Macro

Comments