Micro Lens Suggestions for Nikon D5100?

[Beauty Through a Lens]

I will be photographing bugs/insects with my nikon D5100 (a DX body) In my last forum post I found out that all the micro lens are 1:1 ratio which is what i want (if not closer) are the same. Which lens (under 1,000) should I get if I want to be able to shoot from a distance (to avoid them flying away or being stung and so on).

I'm new to this so please explain your answer in simple terms.

[Stagecoach]

I will be photographing bugs/insects with my nikon D5100 (a DX body) In my last forum post I found out that all the micro lens are 1:1 ratio which is what i want (if not closer) are the same. Which lens (under 1,000) should I get if I want to be able to shoot from a distance (to avoid them flying away or being stung and so on).

I'm new to this so please explain your answer in simple terms.

Hi Adrian,

I have seen your previous thread and along with this one will try and add some input specifically with respect to wasps and stings as you have mentioned this subject twice now. As always nothing is straightforward and what you consider as a safe/acceptable distance may not be the same as someone else considers. A knowledge of the bugs behaviour can also be a significant determining factor in measuring risk with regard to personal safety and flight risk.

Here's an example, both shot with a 105mm (in the most often recommended 90 to 105mm range) ;

Distance - wasps are small


Closer - wasp is bigger


Another consideration is that the farther you are from your subject the more pronounced any camera shake is going to be which has to be weighed against the closer you are the greater the flight risks

So my advice would be, firstly decide the focal length you want to get (and I recommend 90/105mm), then buy the best lens for your budget.

Grahame

[Geoff F]

Before getting a proper macro lens I shot with a close focusing normal zoom. 70-300 mm and the closest distance was 3 ft. But adding an extension tube got me 1 ft closer which was workable, although only really successful on a tripod.

Something to consider if you already have a suitable lens and are on a budget.

[Stagecoach]

Which lens (under 1,000) should I get if I want to be able to shoot from a distance (to avoid them flying away or being stung and so on).

I'm new to this so please explain your answer in simple terms.

Adrian,

Here's a bit more info with respect to macro shooting distance and focal lengths and I'll try and keep it in simple terms;

If you are shooting a subject at 1:1 magnification ratio (closest focusing distance) and as an example this would be a 20mm long wasp almost filling your 23.6mm camera sensor width the distance you would have to be from the subject with the different focal length lenses is;

105mm - 0.31m
150mm - 0.38m
180mm - 0.47m
200mm - 0.50m

These figures are subject to camera sensor and taken from popular macro lens specifications.

So you can see from this that the advantage a 200mm macro lens has over the 105mm lens is that you could be 0.19m (190mm / 7 inches farther away). The 150mm giving an advantage of 0.07m (70mm / 2.7 inches).

This additional working distance advantage should then be weighed against lens weight, cost, ease of handling and additional camera shake when making a choice.

Another consideration is that with all lenses, whatever the focal length, you have the option to move further away from your subject, the subject being smaller in the frame and to compensate for this cropping in post.

How much you can crop depends upon your camera, what you want to do with the image and the image quality standards that are acceptable to you.

Grahame

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Hi Adrian,

I have seen your previous thread and along with this one will try and add some input specifically with respect to wasps and stings as you have mentioned this subject twice now. As always nothing is straightforward and what you consider as a safe/acceptable distance may not be the same as someone else considers. A knowledge of the bugs behaviour can also be a significant determining factor in measuring risk with regard to personal safety and flight risk.

Here's an example, both shot with a 105mm (in the most often recommended 90 to 105mm range) ;

Distance - wasps are small


Closer - wasp is bigger


Another consideration is that the farther you are from your subject the more pronounced any camera shake is going to be which has to be weighed against the closer you are the greater the flight risks

So my advice would be, firstly decide the focal length you want to get (and I recommend 90/105mm), then buy the best lens for your budget.

Grahame

Grahame, I think I am going go for the 18-300mm it's perfect for what I am looking for. Will I be able to get the results as above with the 18-300mm?

[Stagecoach]

Grahame, I think I am going go for the 18-300mm it's perfect for what I am looking for.

Will I be able to get the results as above with the 18-300mm?

Hi Adrian,

No 1 pic above, possibly. No 2 pic above Absolutely not !

What I will mention for info is that my camera is also a Nikon with the same sensor size as yours, older technology with less pixels than yours. I say this because anything I can produce (quality wise) with my camera you can also produce with yours if you have the right lens.

Now to try and explain the answer to your question without figures

I also have 70 to 300mm lens (as Geoff mentions above) in addition to my 1:1 macros but mine also has a special 'close focus' function that can be switched on that is a type of pseudo macro, instead of a true macro 1:1 ratio, it has half the magnification at 1:2.

Here's a quick example I just did of a fly (sorry it's dead but I knew there was a reason I was leaving it on the bedroom curtain) which is exactly 20 mm overall length. Ignore the way out WB as I used flash to attempt to get a reasonably sharp image due to the distance I was shooting from.

No 1 - Taken with the lens in its normal mode at 300mm FL


No 2 - Taken with the lens in it 'macro' mode 1:2 magnification at 185mm FL


No 3 - Taken with the lens in it 'macro' mode 1:2 magnification at 300mm FL


Would any of the above meet the sort of standards you are looking for?

I would be interested to know why you have decided against going for the macro lens as originally discussed?

Grahame

[JR1]

Do you NEED a macro right away, these can be cropped

Nikkor 28-300 VR

[JR1]

Do you NEED a macro right away, Nikkor 28-300 VR

[Stagecoach]

these can be cropped

Nikkor 28-300 VR

Technically correct Jeremy and it may be helpful to Adrian to see a cropped version to demonstrate the sort of result that can be achieved.

For a novice it's often difficult to envisage what can be achieved using certain options.

[Mike Buckley]

A relatively inexpensive Chinese macro lens recently came on the market that focuses to infinity at 2:1 magnification. EDIT: It focuses at 2:1 magnification and focuses at infinity at other magnifications.

Note two peculiarities: The aperture is always stopped to whatever setting is in effect if I understand it properly; when using a small aperture, such little light enters the lens that reviewing the scene in a viewfinder or in LiveView becomes difficult. Though the "normal" 60mm and macro use are possible when using an APS-C (crop) camera, only the macro capability is possible when using a full frame camera.

[Dave Humphries]

A relatively inexpensive Chinese macro lens recently came on the market that focuses to infinity at 2:1 magnification.

Note two peculiarities: The aperture is always stopped to whatever setting is in effect if I understand it properly; when using a small aperture, such little light enters the lens that reviewing the scene in a viewfinder or in LiveView becomes difficult. Though the "normal" 60mm and macro use are possible when using an APS-C (crop) camera, only the macro capability is possible when using a full frame camera.

That's an interesting lens for any Nikon shooter that covets Canon's MPE-65
Yeah, I know, it is hardly in the same ballpark, but 2:1 (even with manual aperture and the format limitations) is closer to 5:1 than 1:1 is (For Nikon shooters).

The bokeh does look nice too, even if only for DX or APS-C shooters.

Thanks for sharing the link Mike.
See also: http://www.venuslens.net/product/ven...ra-macro-lens/

They have obviously kept costs down (and production volumes up) by presumably making it a non-electronic interface lens, which means there will be no EXIF data for lens and aperture on shots
Obviously no AF either, but many don't use that at this level of macro anyway.
It is 60mm and Venus quote closest focus distance is "185mm".
Someone on another forum shows WD (Working Distance) as 45-50mm at 2:1 and 60mm at 1:1.

In round numbers; $400.

(OT, but I did find the last two 'reviews' (for Sigma 200-500mm lens) on this page amusing.)

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

it is hardly in the same ballpark

If you're referring to the relatively low cost, that's what piqued my interest along with the infinity focus.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Hi Adrian,

No 1 pic above, possibly. No 2 pic above Absolutely not !

What I will mention for info is that my camera is also a Nikon with the same sensor size as yours, older technology with less pixels than yours. I say this because anything I can produce (quality wise) with my camera you can also produce with yours if you have the right lens.

Now to try and explain the answer to your question without figures

I also have 70 to 300mm lens (as Geoff mentions above) in addition to my 1:1 macros but mine also has a special 'close focus' function that can be switched on that is a type of pseudo macro, instead of a true macro 1:1 ratio, it has half the magnification at 1:2.

Here's a quick example I just did of a fly (sorry it's dead but I knew there was a reason I was leaving it on the bedroom curtain) which is exactly 20 mm overall length. Ignore the way out WB as I used flash to attempt to get a reasonably sharp image due to the distance I was shooting from.

No 1 - Taken with the lens in its normal mode at 300mm FL


No 2 - Taken with the lens in it 'macro' mode 1:2 magnification at 185mm FL


No 3 - Taken with the lens in it 'macro' mode 1:2 magnification at 300mm FL


Would any of the above meet the sort of standards you are looking for?

I would be interested to know why you have decided against going for the macro lens as originally discussed?

Grahame

The third photograph would do me just fine. I can always buy a 10+ close up lens filter if need be or possible crop the image if it didn't reduce to quality.

[Dave Humphries]

I can always buy a 10+ close up lens filter if need be or possible crop the image if it didn't reduce to quality.

It must to an extent Adrian, although for a subject such as this, set in the middle of frame, where sharpness to the edges is less important or even irrelevant, it may be acceptable to you.

Cropping will also reduce image quality, although arguably not as much.

[Stagecoach]

A relatively inexpensive Chinese macro lens recently came on the market that focuses to infinity at 2:1 magnification.

Thanks for posting that info and link Mike.

From the images shown (IQ and size) that's pretty impressive. To reach equivalent magnification and maintain IQ on my 105 it means using a full set of extension tubes, additional weight and length to the rig.

For serious macro shooters who want to achieve images at max mag I do not think there would be much concern over having to use the lens stopped down as you instinctively know how the framing is going to be and the only thing you are concentrating on is the eyes and nothing else.

Now all you need to do is put a set of tubes on it

Grahame

[Stagecoach]

(OT, but I did find the last two 'reviews' (for Sigma 200-500mm lens) on this page amusing.)

Cheers, Dave

Hilarious Dave

[Mike Buckley]

I have edited my first post about the Chinese lens to indicate that it focuses at 2:1 magnification and focuses at infinity at other magnifications. My wording was incorrect in explaining that it focuses to infinity at 2:1 magnification.

For serious macro shooters who want to achieve images at max mag I do not think there would be much concern over having to use the lens stopped down as you instinctively know how the framing is going to be and the only thing you are concentrating on is the eyes and nothing else.

Not everything photographed at macro magnifications has eyes.

My interest in the lens is that it would give me the capability to relatively inexpensively make abstract photos of inanimate objects in my makeshift studio at magnifications that are twice the size of those currently available in the Nikon line and at about half the price. I have very limited experience using a macro lens and no experience using a stop-down aperture. Even so, my guess is that when using this all-manual lens I would focus on the most critical part with the aperture wide open for easy viewing and then stop down to the smaller apertures when greater depth of field is desired.

[Stagecoach]

Not everything photographed at macro magnifications has eyes. .

Agree Mike, I was trying to look at worse case scenarios that I had experience of. The critter that's moving slightly and the jumping spiders that you need to capture quickly due to their aversion of jumping onto Nikon lenses unexpectedly without warning Situations where it is almost useless attempting the manual aperture adjustment.

In studio static work the bonus is time and if using flash you can always use a continuous modelling light plus of course the live view although live view is something I have very limited experience of.

[ajohnw]

I will be photographing bugs/insects with my nikon D5100 (a DX body) In my last forum post I found out that all the micro lens are 1:1 ratio which is what i want (if not closer) are the same. Which lens (under 1,000) should I get if I want to be able to shoot from a distance (to avoid them flying away or being stung and so on).

I'm new to this so please explain your answer in simple terms.

You can get bellow 1;1 with close up lenses. You would probably be surprised what you can achieve with some of the Nikon kit zoom lenses as well. The best make is probably Raynox. They do 2 styles. One which consists of a holder plus lens and the other that is the usual screw on type. The screw on ones come in sets of 2 and one of them is extremely heavy, not suitable for zoom lenses but could be used on primes including macro lenses. You might like to buy a DCR-250 clip on one to play with. They are relatively cheap.

I became interested in this area when I noticed a Sigma achromatic close up lens on ebay that no one wanted. Fortunately it turned out to have a suitable power. Since that I have taken all of my macro shots with it fitted to a 75-300mm zoom lens as the working distance is way more than my 60mm macro lens. There are some shots here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/489946...7647547098146/

I'm still working on technique. I use the minimum magnifications needed by judging the detail I can see in the view finder. This maximises depth of field. I now feel I should go a little higher than I have been but on the other hand the amount of detail in full resolution views can be surprising. Some detail has been lost due to the crop and image size I have used on most of them.

If you want to do this sort of thing on a macro lens I would suggest the pair of screw on ones they do but I feel that you would want one of Sigma's long focal length macro lenses to maintain a decent working distance. There is a calculator in the CinC tutorials that can be used to see what the increase in magnification will be with various powers. The powers can be found on Raynox's site. The price of some of their lenses has reduced rather a lot of late. I just hope that they maintain the quality. I've found none achromatic close up lenses hopeless for all but marginal increases. I also tried a high powered achromatic one in a Canon box and sent it back. The dealer later told me that he didn't think they actually made them but offered to try and order one directly. I decided to give it a miss. Amazon is a good place to buy in some ways due to their return policy.

Another approach that has been used by many is to fit a 1.4x converter and maybe an extension tube as well. The converter gains magnification and the tube even more as it allows closer focusing. The nice thing about the converter on it's own is that the lens will still focus as it normally does. Some "macro" shots are more easily taken with a telephoto. I'm thinking of a butterfly or maybe a dragon fly that can't be approached closely.

If you do want to get into the real macro area sub 1:1 I suspect you will soon realise why it pays to use no more magnification than the subject needs due to dof limitations. I have been there so feel the same thing can be applied to any reproduction ratio. In that area this forum is worth a visit but some of the magnifications they use make stacking essential. There is at least one person on there that takes shots for that hand held with the high magnification Canon lens.

http://photomacrography.net/forum/index.php


Hope this helps. I suspect your best option really is to buy the longest focal length macro lens you can afford or any one of them and try it before making assumptions about what you need.

John
-

[JR1]

Technically correct Jeremy and it may be helpful to Adrian to see a cropped version to demonstrate the sort of result that can be achieved.

For a novice it's often difficult to envisage what can be achieved using certain options.

I was at a hill climb when nothing was happening so I took a few shots of whatever was around

I can not find them again as I have too many to look through however here are two more NOT taken with a macro lens , invest in decent tubes