Macro Lens Type

[JHzlwd]

What type of Nikon (or Tamron for Nikon) macro lens can get these types of shots?

I do a lot of macro photography and have the Nikon 105 mm/VR "Micro-Nikkkor". It readily produces images of the type in your examples and is a superb lens in every respect. Here are a couple of sample images:







From reviews I understand the equivalent Tamron is also excellent.

Although you probably are not interested, I also have the Sigma F/2.8 180 mm macro which is optically as good as the Nikon and affords even greater working distance. A drawback is weight and - it is quite costly.

The real challenge in macro photography is vanishingly shallow depth of field. Focus stacking works wonders (I use "Zerene Stacker" but you need static subjects - won't work with bugs crawling around.

flash combined with small apertures can improve DOF but the bugbear of diffraction intrudes.

Best wishes,
JH

[rpcrowe]

This is going to make some members scream like a wounded lion...

Regarding focal length of macro lenses; many photographers expect that a shorter focal length lens will produce a wider DOF than longer focal lengths. This is not true in macro photography! Although it is counter-intuitive, a 60mm or a 180mm lens (or any lens that will provide 1:1 imagery) when focused to obtain a 1:1 image will have the same depth of field when shot at the same aperture. The DOF is determined, in these cases, by the image ratio, not the focal length. In reality, there is also no difference in the DOF (at 1:1) between a full frame and a crop camera

The differences in varying focal length lenses, as mentioned above are in: focusing distance + weight of lens + cost of lens

[PhotomanJohn]

One additional comment to add on to Richard's is that camera support and shutter speed is more critical with a longer lens (macro or otherwise) because of the narrower angle of view. This makes them harder to hand hold, requires a steadier tripod and/or a higher shutter speed. I find macro lenses around 100mm to be a good compromise in ease of use and cost.

John

[jcuknz]

I worked out what Richard has written for myself using scale drawings and it seemed logical at the time .... and then later found it in a Kodak manual or booklet whatever .... it was proved many years ago but a lot have yet to discover it.

Where the P&S and Bridge camera have had for a long time [ in terms of the digital revolution ] the DSLR and its lenses have only recently started to catch up ... and this is stabilisation ... it is well over a decade that I started to have 280mm equivalent lens without OIS and then moved to 430mm with OIS .... with the first camera excellent as it is in other respects I found I needed to use at least a monopod which is largely unused these days with OIS, and to be honest different targets ... less demanding.

SOOC with 280mm equivalent lens without OIS in 2003 or monopod amazingly EXIF tells me 1/43 shutter speed
Now SOOC but only 107mm equiv at 1/250 shutter and below my crop ... camera was set to one stop under expose then in 2004 with my Nikon 5700 bridge. I am struggling to compete with the DSLR but something to be reasonably happy with.




And I guess there is a slight difference in size between the Bumble and ordinary Bee