Help please with choice of macro lens

[Mike Buckley]

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

a very rough rule of thumb. As a starting point, assuming the lens can reach 1:1 without extension, assume that the maximum magnification will be somewhat greater than (FL+EL)/FL. So, for example, a full 68mm of Kenko tubes on a 90mm lens would come out to a maximum magnification somewhat greater than (90+68)/90=1.76:1. I think if you tested it, you would end up with something closer to 2:1. From this you can see that the shorter the focal length, the greater the magnification.

I did not realize this. Now that I do, I wonder if my ultimate choice of a macro lens with a 1:1 magnification if used with extension tubes shouldn't be with a shorter focal length of 40mm or 60mm rather than the longer end of 85mm to 105mm. That's mostly because of reduced cost assuming all other factors are reasonably the same. Are they the same?

As an example, the Nikon 40mm is a DX lens (I never plan to shoot FX cameras) that costs only $250. Its shortest focusing distance is 6.4". I'll always be working in my makeshift studio. I won't be shooting live bugs so I don't need a longer focusing distance in that regard. Will it help to have a longer distance of about 9" or 12" provided by a 60mm or 85mm lens, respectively, to allow more lighting flexibility? I'll always use continuous light and/or off-camera flash units.

Anything else I don't know to ask about?

[Geoff F]

The main reason for using larger macro lenses is because you can't physically get closer to the subject or that would scare away a nervous live subject. I use a 180 mm macro lens often with a 1.4x converter for that purpose.

One of the downsides of extra magnification is slightly reduced quality. So if you can get closer, that will be better; but be aware of possible distortion on some lenses if you force them too close. Possibly not a problem if there aren't any straight lines.

For example, when photographing flowers, particularly in the wild, I find myself with a choice of backing off with my 180 lens, which also has a shallow focus depth, or moving in with the Tamron 24-70 and better focus depth.

For whole flowers, I frequently prefer the 24-70, if straight line distortion isn't a potential problem.

I assume you will be using some form of studio lighting, etc, not on the camera flash, which can have problems due to the flash angle.

Incidentally, you can spend a lot of money on closer working macro lenses if you want the best!

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Hey Mike, I've only dabbled with macro from a not too serious point of view but have had lots of fun with a Micro Nikkor 55mm 2.8 I got off the Goodwill site for fairly cheap money (<$130 shipped). You might just want to keep your eyes open for a lens there before jumping in with both feet on an expensive lens.
I really lucked out and got a lens that is pristine and I consider it one of my best lenses. The close focusing Vivitar 75-150 is fun to play with too and super sharp for a 'free to me' lens.
Just something to consider as there are cheap, good macros out there for not a lot of money if you look and are patient.

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to Geoff and Alan!

Alan: I completely agree about not necessarily requiring new equipment. I'm going to rent some lenses to get a hands-on feel of what works for me before I take the plunge and purchase anything. Once I decide the best fit, I'll look at used options. My 180mm prime lens made in 1986-7, my 300mm prime lens made mostly in the 1980s, and both flash units were purchased used and I've never had a problem.

By the way, I believe your Nikon 55mm macro only achieves 1:2 magnification, whereas I'm presently considering lenses minimally at 1:1 and one at 2:1.

[Polar01]

I am thinking from a lighting point of view, and you light your objects just beautifully. Wouldn't being tight in as in distance cause any problems with lighting? Whereas being farther back may cause less problems. Just thinking.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

Mike,

The 40mm will get you 1:1 but only manually and only with a extreme closeness to the subject, you might be able to get 1:1 with a large subject. This was shot at 1:1 ratio with the 40mm lens, oversharpened somewhat but serving as an example. The front of the lens was about 1/4" from the face of the coin. This was shot at f/8, ISO 1000, 1/5sec.

[Mike Buckley]

The front of the lens was about 1/4" from the face of the coin.

Ahhhhhhhh. You just now indirectly reminded me that focusing distance is the distance between the plane of focus and the subject, not the front lens element and the subject. That would seem to eliminate my consideration of a 40mm macro lens for reasons having to do with lighting flexibility mentioned by Allan and other issues.

[NorthernFocus]

I own two macro lenses rarely used. It is surprising how close you are at 1:1. My only advice is do NOT get a VR lens. Unecessary weight, cost, complexity.

[Stagecoach]

I own two macro lenses rarely used. It is surprising how close you are at 1:1. My only advice is do NOT get a VR lens. Unecessary weight, cost, complexity.

For studio work with tripod use I would fully agree about VR Dan.

Where I find VR is invaluable in macro is when hand holding the additional stability it gives the view of the subject in the viewfinder aids focusing. Something possibly more useful than the extra IQ you get.

[DanK]

Ahhhhhhhh. You just now indirectly reminded me that focusing distance is the distance between the plane of focus and the subject, not the front lens element and the subject. That would seem to eliminate my consideration of a 40mm macro lens for reasons having to do with lighting flexibility mentioned by Allan and other issues.

Yes, what you need is minimum working distance (MWD), which is the distance from the subject to the front of the lens.

Personally, I would not go shorter than 60 mm or so. I did a lot of studio macro with a 60mm and a crop sensor camera, and I found the working distance adequate, but your preferences may turn out to be different.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mike Buckley]

Continued thanks to everyone!

I did a lot of studio macro with a 60mm and a crop sensor camera, and I found the working distance adequate, but your preferences may turn out to be different.

What were your primary subjects? I ask in the context that I'm thinking about approximate size.

[Mike Buckley]

My only advice is do NOT get a VR lens. Unecessary weight, cost, complexity.

For studio work with tripod use I would fully agree about VR Dan.

My decision will be based entirely on the assumption that I will always be using a tripod.

[Stagecoach]

Some more thoughts Mike .........................

It seems that your biggest problem/concern/unknown is going to be lighting with respect to new smaller working distances.

As you are already expert it setting up lighting positions for larger static studio scenes I wonder if there is any value in setting up an existing lens at 'macro' working distances (e.g. 105mm = 6 inch subject to lens approx at 1:1) from a small subject and physically playing with your lighting to see any obvious limitations.

Another one that has not been mentioned yet is lens hood, is it something you find you have to use for present work lighting?

[DanK]

What were your primary subjects? I ask in the context that I'm thinking about approximate size.

Mike,

most of my flower dessicated flower macros were done in the studio. You can tell from the black background. A fair number of them were done at less than 1:1. I no longer recall what the maximum magnification was.

At these distances, the lens will need to be protected from any side lighting, which I rely on a lot. So another thing to think about is that you will need a lens hood for most of them, and that adds a few inches.

Dan

[rpcrowe]

Your ideas regarding focal length seem predicated on what you presently shoot. Perhaps you might consider what you might want to shoot in the future...

I have found that a macro in the focal range of 90mm to 100mm is just about an ideal combination of;

Lens to subject distance
Weight
Price
Size

I would definitely choose a macro lens that has a 1:1 capability without needing an adapter.

I have an older Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF SP macro lens which I purchased years ago for $100 USD through eBay. It is an excellent lens and the newer Di version can be found at a good price used on eBay. Brian's efforts in macro have really improved since he purchased this lens for his Sony camera.

note: I would not purchase the 90mm f/2.5 Tamron Adaptall

[Mike Buckley]

Your ideas regarding focal length seem predicated on what you presently shoot. Perhaps you might consider what you might want to shoot in the future...

Good advice, of course! I can't predict the future with absolute certainty, but I'm most definitely taking into account what I shoot now and what I currently have plans to shoot in the future.

I have found that a macro in the focal range of 90mm to 100mm is just about an ideal combination of;

Lens to subject distance
Weight
Price
Size

Weight and size are unimportant to me because I'll always use a tripod, except to the extent of course that my tripod is sturdy enough to provide the necessary stability.

I would definitely choose a macro lens that has a 1:1 capability without needing an adapter.

Thanks for confirming that my requirement about that is reasonable.

I would not purchase the 90mm f/2.5 Tamron Adaptall

Apparently no longer being made. It's not at B&H or Tamron's website.

[Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF SP Di:] Brian's efforts in macro have really improved since he purchased this lens for his Sony camera.

You surprise me, Richard. Understatement of such exponential proportions is not your typical style.

[Mike Buckley]

Grahame: You're right that my biggest unknown is the issue of lighting a scene when working regularly at such close focusing distances. I almost always use my Nikon 35mm and I sometimes use it at its closest focusing distance of 9.8" (plane of focus to subject). Lighting with that has never been an issue, so perhaps I should play it safe and purchase a lens that has a similar minimal focusing distance when achieving 1:1 magnification. I'm still considering the Laowa 60mm lens with a 2:1 magnification at 2.4" but I don't know the distance at 1:1 magnification.

Grahame and DanK: You mentioned the lens hood. I always use it in the studio because it minimizes the situations when I have to add a flag to eliminate flare or at least lack of contrast. I use one particular lighting scheme when defining the edges of transparent glass with bright tones that routinely creates flare. That setup requires using a flag even when using the lens hood. I won't be surprised to learn when doing macro work that I'll have to use a different, more complicated lighting scheme to accomplish the same look.

[Mike Buckley]

I forgot to mention, DanK, that I remember your dessicated flower shots very well. Hopefully you'll get back to making more of them sooner rather than later. I believe it was you who fairly recently made a similar photo of a dead leaf that had a nice touch of back lighting.

[Mike Buckley]

Does adding an extension tube increase the minimum focusing distance (focusing plane to subject) at least as much as the thickness of the tube? I assume yes, but I would like to know with absolute certainty.

[John 2]

Mike, you could consider the 100mm Tokina. Tokina lenses vary when it comes to IQ but their 11-16mm super wide and the 100mm macro have always been well reviewed. Seen to be as good as the Tamron (see the reviews) and both are rated as better than Nikon's offering which is a rare occurrence. Unlike the Nikon, it doesn't have a rotating front element which is a consideration if you need to use filters e.g. a CPL to kill speculative highlight. The front element is set back a good 1.5 inches and so although a lens hood is supplied, I have never used it. I bought it at the time because of the reviews and because the Tamron was in short supply. I have never been disappointed with it's output and it's the one lens that I kept when I changed systems from Nikon to Fuji. I now use it with an adapter rather than Fuji's 60mm macro lens because it gives me more distance from the subject. Thought I would mention it as a possible alternative to expand your choice.