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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 20, 2005, 9:24 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 274
Default

I'm looking at getting into Macro photography with my Nikon D50. Most of my pics will be of flowers and fruit with the occasional bug pics. At first I was considering the Nikon AF 60mm F2.8D but some readers seem to indicate that the Nikon AF 105mm F2.8D would be a better choice since it would provide more "working distance" especially for bugs.

Since the D50 has a crop factor of 1.5x, is the Nikon AF 105mm F2.8D macro lens still fine or should I be purchasing the Nikon AF 60mm F2.8D macro lens.

agiaccio is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 20, 2005, 11:38 AM   #2
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

They will both do the job well. The best way to see which suits you best is to take your D50 down to your local camera shop and try them out. It very much depends on the size of your subjects. For small bugs the 105 is probably a good bet as it will give you a good working distance. But if you are not shooting at 1:1 then the working distance may be a bit too much.



For info my avatar was shot on a D70 with a 100mm Tokina Macro lens at about 1:2 this gave me a good working distance but for smaller subject or murkier watersI use a Sigma 50mm macro to reduce the working distance.
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2006, 11:14 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
magsigns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9
Default

tamron macro is a better macro lense . cheeeper 2
magsigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 8:01 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

magsigns wrote:
Quote:
tamron macro is a better macro lense . cheeeper 2
I would agree with cheaper, but I'm not so sure about better. The nikon wins in build quality without a doubt, and I found it to be sharper than the tamron with less CA. I know you said in an earlier post you weren't a fan of KEH, but I got my Nikon 105 rated ex for a little over $400.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 8:26 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
taolang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16
Default

what about Sigma 105 2.8 Macro, any body used one?
taolang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2006, 1:25 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I have no experience with the Sigma, but would expect a lens similiar to the tamron in build quality and performance.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2006, 11:34 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

I have the MicroNikkor 60mm and love it. I think 60mm (90 mm equivalent) is just the right focal length for bugs. With longer focal length lenses you will have problems with depth of field. The shortest focussing distance for Nikkor60mm and 105mm lenses are equal.

The new Nikkor 105mm Auto-focus-S with VR2 ( http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_6387.html) should be ideal for butterflies and flowers. But for small bugs I think my 60mm is better. Another advantage of the 60mm vs 105mm is when you use built-in flash. With the longer 105 the lensmay block the light path.

This attached picture was taken with MicroNikkor 60mm and Nikon D50.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 1:07 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
DrDictionary1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 194
Default

I've got a question. I was looking at the Nikkor 70-300G lens, and I realize that it's not actually a macro lens, but it can focus at about 1 meter at 300mm. If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't that work as a macro lens or would the zoom kill too much of the DOF?
Thanks,
Mike
DrDictionary1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 2:08 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

The term macro used to mean life size on 35mm slide. It was important when slide films are the norm. With digital you can crop to your desire. Your 70-300 should be able to do 1:1 with cropping. The advantage of the real macro (Nikon call them "micro") lenses are that they are designed for sharp image at close distance. Kind of special purpose lenses that's why they cost more.

At 300mm you will have problem with depth of field. I usually use f:32 on my 60mm lens to cover insects from head to tail.

This picture of dragonfly was taken with my 80-400 lens which can focus to 2.3m @400mm.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2006, 2:17 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
DrDictionary1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 194
Default

Thanks, that clears it up for me. I figure since I need a telephoto anyways, I'll get the 70-300 and use that as my macro until I can afford a real one.
Thanks,
Mike
DrDictionary1 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 3:13 AM.