Macro Lens Type

[Beauty Through a Lens]

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

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I'm pretty sure my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 can achieve that level of photo with the PK-13 tube.
Now, I'm not so sure I as a photographer can do it, but I'm pretty sure the lens is up to the task, attached to either my D7000 or Nex-7.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

I'm pretty sure my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 can achieve that level of photo with the PK-13 tube.
Now, I'm not so sure I as a photographer can do it, but I'm pretty sure the lens is up to the task, attached to either my D7000 or Nex-7.

I am aware that it depends on the skills as well also I'm not wanting a tube.

[rpcrowe]

Macro Tamron or Nikon lenses can produce a maximum of 1:1 imagery. That is, the image on the sensor is exactly the same size as the original subject. However, virtually any digital image will be enlarged and/or cropped for its final size. So the image which we see on a print or on a monitor will be larger than the original subject.

If you want an image on your sensor larger than 1:1, and if you are shooting a camera other than a Canon, you need to use extension tubes or perhaps a bellows to get the larger image (Note: The Canon MP-E 65mm Macro lens will produce imagery of between 1:1 and 5:1 image ratios without extensions). You "could" possibly use a close-up filter to get a greater than 1:1 image ratio but, I don't know of anyone who uses a close-up filter in conjunction with a macro lens....

The focal length of a macro lens doesn't have any relationship to the image ratio which can be achieved. Rather, the focal length determines the lens to subject distance. As an example, the 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 105mm, 150mm and 180mm macro lenses can all produce exactly the same size images if used on the same format camera. The difference will be in the lens to subject distance require to achieve those images. Any of these lenses will achieve the same image ratio regardless of the format of the DSLR you are using. The difference will be that at 1:1 ratio, the full frame sensor will cover a larger area than the crop sensors.

[Stagecoach]

Adrian, what we do not know about these images is what they were taken with, the magnification of the lens used and whether tubes or CU filter was also used.

Looking at the jumping spider, (the greatest magnification one based on my experience of the size of these) and its obvious quality I would suggest its been shot at a magnification greater than 1:1.

In reality you could use a 1:1 magnification lens (Nikons and Tamron) to take that shot, crop it heavily to a tiny image a produce something but it would not be quality as that one.

If you are using a crop Nikon 23.5mm will fill your sensor across at 1:1 magnification. How much you can crop an image depends upon your camera and what size you want to be able to produce. My guideline is that I personally want to be able to produce a macro that looks top shelf on a screen at 1200 to 1400 px width.

[Shadowman]

I was checking out the Nikon micro lens lineup and noticed that there are two versions of the 105mm, the AF-S 105mm, f/2.8 designates 1:1 ratio and the micro 105mm, f/2.8 designates only 1:2 ratio. Check specifications before purchasing.

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And...ro-Lenses.html

[PhotomanJohn]

The older manual focus, AIS series lenses required an extension tube to obtain1:1 as John mentions in the previous post. To my knowledge all of the auto-focus micro lenses that Nikon has made are capable of 1:1 without the addition of extension tubes or the like. Some of the older ones require the camera to have a focus motor in order to auto-focus which is not generally an issue for shooting stationary objects. Auto-focus can be handy when chasing a bug or the like. All of these lenses mentions have excellent image quality.

To address your original question, Tamron makes an excellent 90mm f/2.8 lens that is several hundred dollars cheaper (in US) than the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and has equal image quality.

John

[deetheturk]

Hi Adrian, does it have to be Nikon or Tamron? Sigma make a fantastic 105mm f2.8 macro lens which also has O.S, Sigma speak for image stabilization!

[Geoff F]

Yes, I use the Sigma 180 macro lens on a Canon body.

One thing to consider with any macro lens, Adrian, is how close can you physically get to the subject.

Some of the smaller macro lenses will produce excellent results but you have to be really close which can be a problem when photographing live nervous insects. Obtaining suitable lighting without any shadow areas is another potential problem when getting very close.

Which is why I shoot with a 180 lens that enables me to work from a distance of 12 inches or more. But these larger lenses have drawbacks such as being large, heavy and cumbersome; best used on a tripod; and expensive.

No simple 'just use this lens' answer I'm afraid.

[jcuknz]

I would suggest apart from the relative inflexibility of the 'tube' so long as it is an 'auto-tube' it works well but obviously not as flexible as a 'macro lens' ...I am not sure that the shot of the pen tip was going 'that' tight as my pen-tip-shot shown recently with a 140mm [280 equiv ] and three stacked auto-tubes achieved for me ... but for that shot I didn't need flexibility as I was purely seeing how tight I could go and others subsequently went tighter. I could have got tighter but for one of my 10mm tubes deciding not to work in combination with the other three

So if I was going to buy a macro lens my preference would be for one of the longer focal length beasties as I believe in staying back from the subject for lighting and safety considerations. One of the problems with using tubes or CU lens with short lenses being that you get SO CLOSE ! Though for some this is not a problem I appreciate But I also have had OIS for years now to help with hand-holding ... so many variables to consider.

In this search for 'tight framing' there is an important aspect which is you do not need to get close for it as you can well use a longer focal length lens without any loss of depth of field to achieve the tight framing. The possible drawback of the longer lens is that you need more extension for a given subject distance than a short lens. as my 'jack-hammer' shot shows when using a 135mm lens on APS-C with 230mm extension. compared to the 9:1 magnification using a 25mm lens with 130mm extension on an SLR.

So many variables and skill is only one of them ....

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Okay well lets figure out which lens I should get first.

I have a Nikon D5100 which means my image sensor is APS-C (23.6 x 15.7 mm) and the crop factor is 1.5x I will be photographing insects, raindrops, and flowers. Size/weight doesn't matter that much to me. I don't want to have to always use a tripod. I want a 1:1 ratio. I also don't want to have to crop my images.


Now for the extension tubes and stuff.

From what I read I am going need an extension tube or something we don't know what type of extension tube (or something else) was used, but to get these close of shots what do you think I'd need?

[marlunn]

I use a nikon d5200 with a Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro - handheld in the main for insects and flowers as well as other bits and bobs,
This is full frame of a Libellula depressa - Darter Dragonfly having just emerged
F7.1, 1/200 sec, ISO400 spot meter

original frame is 6000 x4000 - this is reduced down in size but not cropped here to 1500 x 1000



I have shots closer but Dof gets silly and then you are into image stacking and hand held is not the best answer

To be honest the Sigma is an awsome lens and is rated as good if not better than the makes - Nikon - Canon equivalent

[DanK]

Adrian,

You say that you don't want to use a tripod, but size and weight don't matter. In macro photography, tiny movements matter, so you might find that size (which changes the center of gravity) and weight do matter to you if you don't want to use a tripod, or at least a monopod. Like many macro photographers, I use an off-center diffused flash held next to the end of the lens for bugs. Even with a relatively light-weight 100mm lens, this rig is very hard to hand-hold, and I usually use a monopod. A 180 would be harder. It would be great if you could find a way to handhold both.

There is no clear answer to the 100mm vs. 180mm question. Some prefer the longer lens for its greater working distance; others prefer the shorter for its smaller size and lighter weight (and lower cost). This is really a matter of personal preference, in my opinion. However, given your interest in bugs, I would advise not going shorter than the 90-105mm lenses.

Since you know you want a 1:1 lens, the amount of extension needed for some of the images you posted is not really relevant to your decision. I'd start with a 1:1 lens. It takes a while to get comfortable with that, and extension tubes only make it harder. Once you are comfortable with the lens, get yourself a set of Kenko tubes (12, 20 and 36mm, stackable in any combination) and experiment. My own default for bugs is 100mm plus 36 mm extension. To get comparable magnification with a 180mm, you would need more extension.

BTW, since you are asking these questions, I assume the images you are posting aren't yours, or you would know the answer. It's not appropriate to post other people's images this way. The way to do it is to post a link to the photo on the owner's site.

I'll post below two that I shot with my default, a 100mm lens and a 36mm extension tube. Without severe cropping, you could not do these just with a 1:1 lens.

Dan

[jcuknz]

I will merely here make the suggestion that whatever support you use it is not fixed to the camera but rather to the lens ...a 'good lens' has this built in but you can get a ring to grip the lens with the thread for the support of choice ... probably has a proper name but that eludes me at the moment.
Great shots above .... mouth watering!

[Stagecoach]

Okay well lets figure out which lens I should get first.

I have a Nikon D5100 which means my image sensor is APS-C (23.6 x 15.7 mm) and the crop factor is 1.5x I will be photographing insects, raindrops, and flowers. Size/weight doesn't matter that much to me. I don't want to have to always use a tripod. I want a 1:1 ratio. I also don't want to have to crop my images.

Ok Adrian lets take the Focal Length out of the equation for now and you basically have three choices, Nikon, Tamron or Sigma. From all my reading over the years you can not buy a bad macro lens, they all produce almost equivalent quality.

a) If you were to only undertake tripod work a non VR may be acceptable.
b) If you were to only undertake flash work a non VR may be acceptable.
c) If you wish to handhold VR will give you an advantage.

Some say VR is a waste of time in macro work (ok on a tripod yes) but any advantage it gives is a bonus and one of the significant advantages I find is that it helps 'steady' the view in the viewfinder assisting your ability to move the camera to obtain focus on exactly what you want (e.g. when you are aiming to get the front, mid or rear of a bugs eye in sharpest focus?)

This may help narrow your choice.

Edited to cover your second question also.

Now for the extension tubes and stuff.

From what I read I am going need an extension tube or something we don't know what type of extension tube (or something else) was used, but to get these close of shots what do you think I'd need?

Tubes generally come in sets, the most popular being the Kenkos which consist of a 12, 20 and 36mm giving a total of 68mm if all three are stacked. On a 105mm 1:1 max magnification lens (I base this on the Nikon 105mm) using the full 68mm will give you 2:1 magnification, so an object 12mm wide will fill your sensor at the closest focusing distance.

[William W]

Adrian, in your bio here it states that your Occupation is a Photographer

If these intended images are for business purposes, especially if for long term business purposes or just really serious fun, then I suggest you do consider Canon.

With your bolded for emphasis lists of 'wants' and 'don't wants' and considering the samples of Subject and Magnification that you have posted, I don't think you will get all that you say you want with Nikon, in fact if you do get close to those sample I feel it will be a struggle with Nikon even with tubes / bellows.

The bottom line is, given your seemingly inflexible criteria, you're heading for something like a 5D Series Camera; a 100 Macro Lens and also an MP-E 65 Lens - the latter can't mount to your Nikon Camera and work properly.

So it occurs to me, that the consideration of any other tools (if this is a business venture) is a waste of time, effort and capital expenditure: even if this venture is for fun, it seems to me still worthwhile that you give this lateral thought its due consideration.

WW

[DanK]

As someone who shoots macro with Canon gear, I mostly agree with Bill, but not entirely.

If you think you are going to want to go closer than 2:1, then I would agree with Bill. Nearly everyone I know who does that (a small group) does it with the Canon MP-E 65 lens. On the other hand, if 2:1 is enough for you, then as Grahame says, a lens of 100 or 105 mm with a full set of Kenko tubes will get you there. That is what I do. I haven't yet gone closer than 2:1. I am not certain, but I think the ant photo you posted is closer than 2:1.

Re the camera body: that is where I disagree with Bill. For a lot of macro work, in my opinion, a crop sensor camera is actually better. The higher pixel density is in my opinion worth the modest decrement in image quality, particularly since most macro work is done with artificial lighting that allows a relatively low ISO setting. The reason is primarily that at maximum magnification, the image on the sensor is the same size regardless of the size of the sensor, so you get more pixels on the subject with a higher pixel density. In addition, when chasing bugs, the smaller and lighter form factor is nice.

I do my macro with two bodies, a 5DIII and an old 50D. For tripod-based work, I usually use the 5DIII. For chasing bugs, I usually use the 50D, for the reasons above. If I had endless money, I would buy a 7DII or even a used 7D to replace the 50D, to get better sensor performance and higher pixel density. That said, one of the best macro photographers I know of does a lot of his bug work with a 5DII and an MP-E 65.

Re Grahame's comment about VR: my understanding is that the Canon hybrid IS system, available on only a few lenses (including the 100mm L macro) is fundamentally different from other VR/VC/IS systems. Standard systems compensate for rotation, which becomes progressively less important as you get closer to the subject. Hybrid IS also compensates for motion parallel to the sensor, which is important for macro work.

[William W]

. . . Re the camera body: that is where I disagree with Bill. For a lot of macro work, in my opinion, a crop sensor camera is actually better. The higher pixel density is in my opinion worth the modest decrement in image quality, particularly since most macro work is done with artificial lighting that allows a relatively low ISO setting. The reason is primarily that at maximum magnification, the image on the sensor is the same size regardless of the size of the sensor, so you get more pixels on the subject with a higher pixel density. In addition, when chasing bugs, the smaller and lighter form factor is nice. . .

I thought that if you commented that you would mention the general superiority & flexibility of APS-C over 135 Format. Glad you did.

But I am not sure if we "disagree"? My mention of "5D Series Camera" was specific for use with the MP-E 65.

I also think the ant photo is more than 2:1, and I think some of the others are too.

I don't own an MP-E 65, but I have just played with one. Also (as I think you know) macro is not something that I do much of at all - and I haven't used Nikon for many years so am not up to date with their newer lenses and that's why I had an initial reluctance to make a comment early on in the thread.

I have a 100 and also the 50/2.5 (with adapter). I also use a dual format kit.

As a general comment, there is usually a lot more kit to producing good macro work than just buying one macro lens and the thrust of my initial comment was predicated on the uses for these photos - if in any way Adrian wants to use these images for or to promote a business, then I think that he will probably need: a dual format kit; two macro lenses including the MP-E 65; a set of tubes; tripod; head; Flash x 2; dedicated purpose made Flash modifiers and two way racks.

WW

[DanK]

Bill,

I've never tried the MP-E 65. I find even 2:1 hard. However, at some point, I will find one to try out. I hadn't give thought to using one on crop vs. FF.

Re rails: I do own a nice one (a Kirk), but I use it only to help me change the position of the camera without moving the tripod and disturbing the framing. I adjust focus manually, or remotely using Helicon Remote. However, with an MP-E 65, it would be a whole different story.

Dan

[William W]

oops! . . . sorry meant to add in Post #18 that my main two reasons for suggesting the MP-E 65 on a 5D series are:

> the viewfinder brightness. The MP-E 65, although an 'F/2.8 lens', is functionally very dark through the viewfinder. Although the 7D Series seem to have quite a bright viewfinder.

> at such big magnifications, the reduced FoV when using an APS-C would be (my opinion) more of an hassle than an advantage, just a touch on the tripod / head / rails is reflected as an huge movement across the Field of View of the scene.

Also, a Live-view Monitor is very handy.

BTW, (Dan), in case you were not aware - another Canon Lens method to get to x2 Magnification is to use the EF180 F/3.5 L Macro and a x2.0 Extender EF. (or the x1.4 Extender EF for x1.4 Mag.). It doesn't appear to be all that widely known, that the EF 180/3.5L is fully compatible with the Canon Extenders.

WW

P.S. I don't use my rails very much at all. Don't use my bellows much either - and the bellows are still waiting on my workbench to be adapted to an EF bayonet, so that is indicative of my priorities in that regard.