Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 8, 2007, 4:56 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

That was the 60mm Micro, re-sized, as is this.

I don't know about the D80 kit lens (18-135 I assume you mean). While the resolution seems good, the vignetting would put me off, but then I hate vignetting. I sold a Contax film camera I had because of the annoying vignetting and have been trying to avoid it on DSLRs ever since, which is not easy - so many lenses seem to vignette on DSLRs.

Keith.
Attached Images
 
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 5:09 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
Default

holy crap!!!!!!!!!!!


u mean to say the eyes of the moth/fly what ever it is was with a 60mm nikor!!!!??????????????!!!!

Jesus!!!!!!!!!!


What do you mean by resizing? software enlarging and editing???


amitr0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 5:31 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

The LED was just reduced number of pixels so it is small enough to post. The dragonfly has been cropped a little, sharpened and then reduced the number of pixels for posting. The dragonfly was shot at f45 so it is not the sharpest aperture to use, hence the need for a little USM. They are not "upsampled".

Also, to photograph the dragonfly I had to lay on my back with my head in a rabbit hutch because the dragonfly was inside the roof of the hutch. A longer focal length would have been a distinct disadvantage, if not impossible.

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 2:58 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
The LED was just reduced number of pixels so it is small enough to post. The dragonfly has been cropped a little, sharpened and then reduced the number of pixels for posting. The dragonfly was shot at f45 so it is not the sharpest aperture to use, hence the need for a little USM. They are not "upsampled".

Also, to photograph the dragonfly I had to lay on my back with my head in a rabbit hutch because the dragonfly was inside the roof of the hutch. A longer focal length would have been a distinct disadvantage, if not impossible.

Keith.
ok, so can u send me a pointer to the nikkor lens 60mm from adorama.com

there are quite a few in search, and I am unable to decide!!
amitr0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 5:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

I could only see two - NK6028AFD and NK6028AFDU depending on if you want a grey import or official US one.

However, you should get some more opinions if you can before maing a decision. I am sure that people with the 105mm VR or other macro lenses have reasons for their preference and some great shots to share. However, I am very happy with my 60mm :-)

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 6:02 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
Default

keith to be honest, if i buy a micro from nikon, it has to be the 60mm as the rest are too high priced. sigma could have been a choice but then it is so popular that there is a 2 month backlog on it!!!!


so i guess it has to be 60mm.

can i use extension tubes on the 60mm to further magnify???
amitr0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 6:14 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

amitr0 wrote:
Quote:
keith to be honest, if i buy a micro from nikon, it has to be the 60mm as the rest are too high priced. sigma could have been a choice but then it is so popular that there is a 2 month backlog on it!!!!


so i guess it has to be 60mm.

can i use extension tubes on the 60mm to further magnify???
Well, for me, cost and weight are always an issue as well. As far as I know you can use extension tubes on pretty much any lens. You may not get autofocus, but then I don't use autofocus when I am doing macro anyway. I am not sure which tubes you need, Kenko seem to crop up a lot, but try searching e.g. http://www.flickr.com/groups/4825185...discuss/67822/

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2007, 7:56 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 74
Default

yeah read it all...that is damn good.

So do you (and others) recommend that I buy the 70-300 VR telephoto from Nikon instead and add the kenko tubes to get the desired effect????


THe situation is like this:

I am buying a D80 + 18-135 inbox!

I have money to buy just barely one other lens (that too sqezzing my pocket)

Since I ws inclined towards macro I didnt consider the 80-300 vr (though it is a fabulous lens), and was focussing on 60mm nikor or 150 mm sigma (as the price for the 105 mm nikor is too much).

I was sacrificng telephoto shoots.

But since the sigma lens is not available easily, and the 60mm nikor (to many ppls view is a bit too close to comfort for the bugs) doesnt the 70-300 + extension tubes work better?

Though honestly, I am still inclined towards the nikon 60mm.

Just asking around.


amitr0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2007, 2:50 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

amitr0 wrote:
Quote:
yeah read it all...that is darn good.

So do you (and others) recommend that I buy the 70-300 VR telephoto from Nikon instead and add the kenko tubes to get the desired effect????


THe situation is like this:

I am buying a D80 + 18-135 inbox!

I have money to buy just barely one other lens (that too sqezzing my pocket)

Since I ws inclined towards macro I didnt consider the 80-300 vr (though it is a fabulous lens), and was focussing on 60mm nikor or 150 mm sigma (as the price for the 105 mm nikor is too much).

I was sacrificng telephoto shoots.

But since the sigma lens is not available easily, and the 60mm nikor (to many ppls view is a bit too close to comfort for the bugs) doesnt the 70-300 + extension tubes work better?

Though honestly, I am still inclined towards the nikon 60mm.

Just asking around.

If you really want good macros, you need a macro lens. I haven't used tubes on a long lens for macro, only a close up filter (and then only for testing to show other people the benefits of a macro lens), but macro lenses are designed to work well when focused close - a normal lens isn't. The benefit of something that is sharp is that you can then crop and get even higher magnificatin (as in the dragonfly). If the picture isn't that sharp, you cannot do that. Also, I have used my 70-300 for macro as a test and found it difficult to use compared to the 60mm, and macro is difficult enough anyway. With ringson a 70-300, I doubt you are going to get to 1:1 i.e. true macro - the rings would need to be 300mm long I think!

It really depends on how much you want a telephoto. You could consider alternatives where you could get two lenses for the price of one. For example, a Sigma 50mm macro and Sigma 70-300. You could even look at the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. I have never used it, but it does 1:2 macro, so may be a reasonable compromise. Have a search around for reviews or comments on it.

It is tricky to know what lenses you want until you have used them for a while. You may end up making a mistake and then needing to sell the lens and buy another. Just try not to make expensive mistakes :crazy:

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 9, 2007, 2:51 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

amitr0 wrote:
Quote:
yeah read it all...that is darn good.

So do you (and others) recommend that I buy the 70-300 VR telephoto from Nikon instead and add the kenko tubes to get the desired effect????


THe situation is like this:

I am buying a D80 + 18-135 inbox!

I have money to buy just barely one other lens (that too sqezzing my pocket)

Since I ws inclined towards macro I didnt consider the 80-300 vr (though it is a fabulous lens), and was focussing on 60mm nikor or 150 mm sigma (as the price for the 105 mm nikor is too much).

I was sacrificng telephoto shoots.

But since the sigma lens is not available easily, and the 60mm nikor (to many ppls view is a bit too close to comfort for the bugs) doesnt the 70-300 + extension tubes work better?

Though honestly, I am still inclined towards the nikon 60mm.

Just asking around.

If you really want good macros, you need a macro lens. I haven't used tubes on a long lens for macro, only a close up filter (and then only for testing to show other people the benefits of a macro lens), but macro lenses are designed to work well when focused close - a normal lens isn't. The benefit of something that is sharp is that you can then crop and get even higher magnificatin (as in the dragonfly). If the picture isn't that sharp, you cannot do that. Also, I have used my 70-300 for macro as a test and found it difficult to use compared to the 60mm, and macro is difficult enough anyway. With ringson a 70-300, I doubt you are going to get to 1:1 i.e. true macro - the rings would need to be 300mm long I think!

It really depends on how much you want a telephoto. You could consider alternatives where you could get two lenses for the price of one. For example, a Sigma 50mm macro and Sigma 70-300. You could even look at the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. I have never used it, but it does 1:2 macro, so may be a reasonable compromise. Have a search around for reviews or comments on it.

It is tricky to know what lenses you want until you have used them for a while. You may end up making a mistake and then needing to sell the lens and buy another. Just try not to make expensive mistakes :crazy:

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:44 PM.