Help please with choice of macro lens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

Note: If you desire to combine the 90mm Tamron Macro with a tele extender, you might need to add an extension tube. This is true with adding a Canon 1.4x TC to the 90mm Tamron on my Canon but, I don't know about a Nikon combination.

---

It varies with Nikon.

Nikons latest TC-14E 111 (1.4x) is not compatible with the Kenko Tube set I have (contacts version) . The TC lens holder is a larger diameter than the internal bore of the tubes.

(The TC is also not compatible with some lenses I have)

But an older Nikon TC 20? (2.0x) is compatible and can be used with the Kenko tube set.

We have to be careful when hunting down Nikon 105 mm macro lenses, as some of them only have a maximum magnification of 1:2. That's true of the lens Richard noted above. The magnification is not even included in the first set of specs at that eBay website, though the seller mentions it further down the page in the area that displays photos of the particular lens being sold. That mention is an indication the seller is probably quite reliable. Interestingly, Nikon still shows a 105mm macro at their website with only a 1:2 magnification but they indicate that it is back ordered, which makes me wonder if they are about to discontinue it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

We have to be careful when hunting down Nikon 105 mm macro lenses, as some of them only have a maximum magnification of 1:2. That's true of the lens Richard noted above. The magnification is not even included in the first set of specs at that eBay website, though the seller mentions it further down the page in the area that displays photos of the particular lens being sold. That mention is an indication the seller is probably quite reliable. Interestingly, Nikon still shows a 105mm macro at their website with only a 1:2 magnification but they indicate that it is back ordered, which makes me wonder if they are about to discontinue it.

---

If you want to buy a second hand this site might be of a help. Maybe mentioned before. I don't know.
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html

George

Re the Tokina...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compa...2C110368259693

Regarding the Tamron 90mm f/2.8... This lens loses some of its value on the used market and is therefore often a good buy used!

EDIT: The information in this post incorrectly assumed that all lenses lacking internal focus rotate when they extend and contract. When the lens rotates during focus-stacking captures, it could be difficult to keep the polarizer in a constant position relative to the light source. Indeed, the Tamrom 90mm macro lens that I bought lacks internal focus and does not rotate.

If the lack of internal focusing on the used Tamron lens I ordered becomes problematic enough, I will probably order the Tokina lens Richard mentioned whether new or used. When I made my buying decision about the Tamron lens, none of the three companies I would buy used equipment from were offering a used Tokina.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

If the lack of internal focusing on the used Tamron lens I ordered becomes problematic enough, I will probably order the Tokina lens Richard mentioned whether new or used. When I made my buying decision about the Tamron lens, none of the three companies I would buy used equipment from were offering a used Tokina.

---

I wonder if internal focusing will be an issue as you'll probably be manually focusing, also a focusing rail would help position the lens more effectively depending on how your subject is displayed. Now if you plan to use the lens for something else; perhaps a larger specimen then internal focusing might be an issue.

EDIT: The information in this post assumed that all lenses lacking internal focus rotate when they extend and contract. Not so. Indeed, the Tamrom 90mm macro lens that I bought lacks internal focus and does not rotate.

Based on information provided by people far more experienced than I am at macro photography, I expect the lack of internal focusing only to be an issue the few times I'll be using a polarizer combined with focus stacking. Even then I don't know if it will be a serious issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Based on information provided by people far more experienced than I am at macro photography, I expect the lack of internal focusing only to be an issue the few times I'll be using a polarizer combined with focus stacking. Even then I don't know if it will be a serious issue.

---

I take it you'll be using the polarizer to offset any highlight reflections?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

I take it you'll be using the polarizer to offset any highlight reflections?

---

Only rarely to eliminate glare. But when it works, using a polarizer to get that job done is always faster and easier than changing the lighting setup.

EDIT: To give you an idea of how relatively unimportant it has been in the past, I've made 780 photos in my makeshift studio and I've used a polarizer filter only 13 times. Yet every time I used it, doing so was very helpful.

I've been seriously studying studio photography about 4 1/2 years. Yet all but one of the times I used a polarizer occurred in the last 9 months, mostly because I branched out into other types of subjects during that time when using a polarizer is more likely. The point is that I will probably be using a polarizer more in the future than in the past.

i like macro, but i don't really know the technicality's of focal lengths etc, i tend to just play around and see what works
i use the sigma 105 and the kenko tubes, my greatest asset though was the ring flash i bought from jessops, being able to use higher F stops made life much easier.
heres a 100% crop of i pic i took of a licorice allsort using all of the above, going back to what you were saying about focal length to add that the lens was almost touching the sweet
http://www.ausy94.dsl.pipex.com/100alsorts.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

DanK helpfully explained the following to me in Brian's thread:


Anything else I don't know to ask about?

---

Hi Mike, versatility is something to think about. The Tamron 90 is also renowned as a portrait lens. Would it be good for your other shooting?

Thanks for the idea, Brian. I already have an excellent Nikon 85mm f/1.8 lens. I suppose I could sell that lens if I become enamored enough with the Tamron 90mm lens. However, the Tamron only opens up to f/2.8. It has rarely been my style to use the largest apertures, but I suppose one day that could change. Another reason not to replace the Nikon lens with the Tamron lens is that I like the idea of having the luxury of leaving my Nikon 85mm in the bag always ready to use no matter where I go and leaving the Tamron 90mm lens in the makeshift studio, always ready to use there when the need arises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

If the lack of internal focusing on the used Tamron lens I ordered becomes problematic enough, I will probably order the Tokina lens Richard mentioned whether new or used. ........................................Tokina.

---

Just in case you do, the following might be of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBs5dIDZMs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91bPN36tgwA

EDIT: The information in this post assumed that all lenses lacking internal focus rotate when they extend and contract. Not so. Indeed, the Tamrom 90mm macro lens that I bought lacks internal focus and does not rotate.

Thanks for that, John. It has been so long since I seriously considered the Tokina that I inaccurately remembered the detail about internal focusing.

Now that the Tamron 90mm SP AF f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 lens is in my possesion, I'm going to make a few observations just in case they are helpful to others considering purchasing this lens for use in studio situations similar to mine.

Lens hood using 1:1 magnification
Some people wondered whether I would be able to use my standard off-camera studio lighting with the lens fully extended and with the lens hood mounted on the lens. I believe using the lens hood will pose no problem. On the other hand, even if it does, the lens will be so close to the subject that the lighting scheme probably would not create the flare or lack of contrast the hood is designed to eliminate. If I somehow come upon a situation when flare or lack of contrast is created when the lens hood is removed, I can always position a flag between the light source and the lens to eliminate that problem.

Lens hood using greater than 1:1 magnification
With the lens fully extended and with one or more extension tubes being used, the chance of being able to properly light the scene while using the lens hood becomes remote. With all three extension tubes used in that situation, it becomes absolutely impossible to light the scene. However, as above, there is no need to use the lens hood in that situation. That's because the lens will be so close to the subject that it would be difficult to come up with a lighting scheme that properly lights the scene and causes flare or lack of contrast.

Use of a polarizer when focus stacking
Now that I have the lens, I realize that my posts earlier in the thread relating to internal focusing foster a misunderstanding I had. This particular lens lacks internal focusing. I incorrectly thought any such lens would rotate when the lens extends and contracts. I now gather from a little bit of reading (you can believe everything you find on the Internet, right?) that some lenses lacking internal focus do indeed rotate and some do not. This particular lens does not rotate, so there will be no need to adjust the polarizer when focus stacking.

Now my only question is why you folks didn't correct me about that? :D

By the way, Tamron makes a more expensive macro lens at the same focal length that has internal focusing.

The lens manual
The designation, Di, on the lens means that it is optimized for use with a digital camera. Try your best not to laugh when you see that the manual mentions film three times in a context that are clearly mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

The lens manual
The designation, Di, on the lens means that it is optimized for use with a digital camera. Try your best not to laugh when you see that the manual mentions film three times in a context that are clearly mistakes.

---

There is always the danger of the technical writer using "cut & paste" techniques to create the new camera manual from the ones for older versions of the lens. Even more scary is that no one who knows how the product is going to be marketed actually proof reads the manual... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

Now that the Tamron 90mm SP AF f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 lens is in my possesion, I'm going to make a few observations just in case they are helpful to others considering purchasing this lens for use in studio situations similar to mine.

Lens hood using 1:1 magnification
Some people wondered whether I would be able to use my standard off-camera studio lighting with the lens fully extended and with the lens hood mounted on the lens. I believe using the lens hood will pose no problem. On the other hand, even if it does, the lens will be so close to the subject that the lighting scheme probably would not create the flare or lack of contrast the hood is designed to eliminate. If I somehow come upon a situation when flare or lack of contrast is created when the lens hood is removed, I can always position a flag between the light source and the lens to eliminate that problem.

Lens hood using greater than 1:1 magnification
With the lens fully extended and with one or more extension tubes being used, the chance of being able to properly light the scene while using the lens hood becomes remote. With all three extension tubes used in that situation, it becomes absolutely impossible to light the scene. However, as above, there is no need to use the lens hood in that situation. That's because the lens will be so close to the subject that it would be difficult to come up with a lighting scheme that properly lights the scene and causes flare or lack of contrast.

Use of a polarizer when focus stacking
Now that I have the lens, I realize that my posts earlier in the thread relating to internal focusing foster a misunderstanding I had. This particular lens lacks internal focusing. I incorrectly thought any such lens would rotate when the lens extends and contracts. I now gather from a little bit of reading (you can believe everything you find on the Internet, right?) that some lenses lacking internal focus do indeed rotate and some do not. This particular lens does not rotate, so there will be no need to adjust the polarizer when focus stacking.

Now my only question is why you folks didn't correct me about that? :D

By the way, Tamron makes a more expensive macro lens at the same focal length that has internal focusing.

The lens manual
The designation, Di, on the lens means that it is optimized for use with a digital camera. Try your best not to laugh when you see that the manual mentions film three times in a context that are clearly mistakes.

---

That's the subject I had in a threat not long ago: the working distance. The space you have between lens and subject to move a box between them. That changes when using or changing a lenshood.

With the Sigma 105 I got 2 lenshoods. One shorter special for macro.

George

Congratulations on your new lens Mike.

I'm still stumped as to how you are going to find 12mm high wine bottles and miniature wine glasses to shoot:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagecoach

I'm still stumped as to how you are going to find 12mm high wine bottles

---

The smallest I've found is a bottle of Chianti about 78 mm high. I suppose I should mention that it's made of plastic, is no doubt empty even though it has never been opened, has a magnet embedded in it, and is currently attached to the side of my refrigerator. EDIT: I just now realized that it's a little more than half full of something that looks like wine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

The smallest I've found is a bottle of Chianti about 78 mm high. I suppose I should mention that it's made of plastic, is no doubt empty even though it has never been opened, has a magnet embedded in it, and is currently attached to the side of my refrigerator.

---

Just a thought:
https://www.personalwine.com/shop/wine/mini-bottles