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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 9, 2007, 4:02 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

I was saying how did the 3rd party done in this area, and wasn't saying they are bad.

As I have spend $$$$ on Nikkor lenses I wanted to know which way to go if I wanted just a Macro for fun.

The Sigma looks pretty good as well.
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 9, 2007, 6:06 PM   #12
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

That's what we try to get across as well: all macro lenses are good - i.e. more $$$$ does not improve the image quality if any... In fact chosing the lowest cost lens with the longest focal lenght is the best formula! :-) :lol::roll:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 3:14 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

nexusworks wrote:
Quote:
ruchai wrote:
Quote:
Micro-Nikkor 60mm f:2.8 is the best. If you take lots of butterfly or poisenous snakepictures then the heavier and more expensive Micro0Nikkor VR105 f:2.8 is more suitable. I have both and love them both.

This picture was taken with D200; VR105
How far away were you when you take this shot of the butterfly? Thats really impressive.

I wonder how the 3rd party lenses compare?
Sorry for late reply. I do not remember how far I was from the butterfly. It maybe around 50 cm. as I usualy keep pressing the shutter while walking toward the subject until it flew away.

The Nikkor 105VR got TPA award as best professional lens of the year 2006, so Ipresume it must be much better than the other brands.


ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 8:42 AM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Ah thats probably because it is F2.8 + VR. It is very costly not to mention I just spent on 17-55mm DX. I might need to settle for a third party for this kind of shots. I think I have way over spent on my equipement.
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2007, 8:52 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Bob Nichol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 822
Default

As pointed out before all the real dedicated macro lenses are great. See: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php for reviews. The macro-like lenses, these are the zoom lenses with a macro setting, aren't all that bad either.

I have the Nikon D70s with Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG and here is an example of what I was able to shoot: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...764366#p764366
Bob Nichol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2007, 4:29 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Which is why I always like your advise bob. I have a D70s.

Here's the thing, I dont really purposely go all out for Macro, and I have a 70-300mmVR which takes very good close ups. And I really manage to catch Bees on flowers etc.

I was wondering Anyone use those close up filters with this lens?

Also I heard Tamron's 90mm F2.8 with Macro DI is extermly sharp only looses in CA with Sigma and Nikon. Anyone had this lens? And if you do what are your comments.

Yes, I read DSLRgear website it was said to be sharpest among the 3 lenses even the VR but on the con side the lense CA was not too good.
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2007, 11:30 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 147
Default

Sorry for the offtopic post, but NHL you seem to have the same problem i have. A red bright dot in your pictures. Any luck getting rid of it? or any idea how you got it?
For me it all started after i took a picture of a police car (they have red white blue cars here).

greets

NHL wrote:
Quote:
cope wrote: Here's from a Sigma 150mm f/2.8:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...amp;forum_id=7


This is probably the best macro lens at this moment:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...cro-af.html%5D
As for the topic. I still had an old Raynox DCR-250 lying around, and tried it on some cheap tele (tamron 70-300 ). It works! The image quality is not the best.. it's pretty bad actually, but that could be the cheap lens i tried it with. You can get really close with those conversion lenses.
chris89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 7:37 PM   #18
Member
 
photoshane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 72
Default

what about a cheaper solution like macro filters that you could put on a kit lens?
Does anyone have any experience with these, how is the quality, what ones do you reccomend, etc.
photoshane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23, 2007, 10:34 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Default

photoshane wrote:
Quote:
what about a cheaper solution like macro filters that you could put on a kit lens?
Does anyone have any experience with these, how is the quality, what ones do you reccomend, etc.
From what I have tried they are not quite there, extentsion tubes might be better.

I suggest if you want just a Macro lens without all the jazz go for Tamron 90mm, I personally liked it. I only bought the 105mmVR soley because I might want a D40 later as a spare and it can be compatible with AF.

Macro work is better done manual anyway. I admit I paid for the jazz for 105mm VR yes the VR helps but that the price I am paying.
nexusworks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 7:25 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
Default

Just one thing to keep in mind when choosing a Macro lens is the DOF you're getting from one.Shorter focal lenght will give you better DOF in general.

I have the Sigma 150mm and the best DOF at 1:1 is about 0.35cm so now I'm also looking to buy the a 50mm macro lens that can go down to at least F/32 so i can get 1.35cm.

The figures bellow should hold for any lens at the same aperture and focus distance.All figures are calculated using the minimum focusing distance as it is then that yo get 1:1 ratio.

For example on the D200 :

Sigma 50mm F/2.8 min focusing distance is 18.9cm at F/2.8 DOF is 0.12cm split 50/50 front and back. At F/16 it is 0.67cm split 49/51% at F/32(max nikon) is 1.35cm at F/45(max canon) it is 1.91cm split 47/53% .

Sigma 70mm F/2.8 min focusing distance is 25cm at F/2.8 DOF is 0.1cm split 50/50% At F/16 it is 0.59cm split 49/51% at F/22 which is the minimum aperture for this lens DOF is 0.83cm split 49/51%

Sigma 105mm F/2.8 min focusing distance is 31.3cm at F/2.8 DOF is 0.07cm 50/50% at F/16 0.37cm 50/50% at F/32 (max on Nikon) it is 0.74cm 49/51% and at F/45 (max on canon) it is 1.04cm 49/51%

Sigma 150mm F/2.8 min focusing distance is 38cm at F/2.8 DOF is 0.04cm at F/8 0.12cm at F/16 0.25cm and at F/22 0.35cm ( F/22 is the min aperture you can get with this lens)

Sigma 180mm F/2.8 min focusing distance is 46cm at F/2.8 DOF is 0.04cm at F/8 0.13cm at F/16 0.25cm at F/22 0.36cm and at F/32 0.51cm

Just to compare the best Canon macro lens is the MP-E65 Macro 5x F/2.8 with min focusing distance at 24cm at 5x magnification at F/2.8 you get DOF of 0.11cm at F/16 which is the minimum you get DOF if 0.6cm but at 5x magnification.

Just my 2cents
gaida 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 4:00 PM.