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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 30, 2006, 9:39 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

TedM wrote:
Quote:
You find the most interesting insects, Ruchai. Your garden has to be one of the scariest, if not most interesting places around!

Then my next question is... is there much of a difference between the 60mm and the 105mm? In other words, should I invest the $200 more so that I won't want to "upgrade" later on and then wish I had done it!
No, I do not think the 105mm is better than the 60mm. I chosen the 60mm against the 105mm because comparing them at the dealer convinced me that the lighter and shorter focal length 60mm was better.

In the good old days when people used film cameras 100mm macro lenses were the most popular. All the books about macro photography were written by such good old men. When theywrote 100mm they actually meant 105/1.5 = 66mm for digital cameras!

Macro photography is fun. You already have the right camera, what you need is the real macro lens.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 8:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Nagasaki wrote:
Quote:
I agree there are no cheap macro lenses. However that doesn't mean you have to buy Nikon. Sigma have their EX range of quality lenses and Tokina have their AT-X pro lenses. These lenses are well worth considering and cost less than the Nikon equivalent. The quality of the 105mm lenses is much the same as the shorter focal length lenses. They all offer 1:1 macro. The difference is the working distance. How far you can be from your subject and get a 1:1 shot. There are advantages to both and it depends on your subject and how close you can get.
I agree that you do not have to buy Nikon. But remember macro lenses are for niche market. They sell only small number of macro lenses. Smaller companies cost for such lenses should be even more than that of Nikon's. You can experiment with all those lenses but it will end up more expensive. If your interest is macro then get the proven lens, my 10 cents opinion.

I think with the D50 compact and light weight the provenMicroNikkor 60mmis worth the consideration. I am very happy with the combo. When I got my D200 I found out that with macro it could not match the D50 because of the slightly heavier weight of the D200. This attached picture was taken with the D50 and 60mm macro. It was summer and frogs were waiting for rains. I approached this fellow and it always jumped away before I could get close. I then used flash to fool the frog to think that they were lightnings. It let me get so close that I had to kneed down and held the camera in one hand. This picture definitely could not be captured with D200and 60 macro nor D50 with 105 macro. Weight of the camera is really count in macro photography without tripod. I am now always use the D50/60mm macro as my standard macro setup.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 8:03 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

I would guess that Sigma and Tokina sell more macro lenses than Nikon. They sell the same lens for several mounts not just Nikon so have a bigger market to aim at. As Ted is looking for a good lens at a reasonableprice then after market manufacturers can offer quality at a lower price.

Ken
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6, 2006, 7:33 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 13
Default

I did a head to head with the 60 micro and the 90 tamron. I ended up getting the 60. Shooting close it was a toss up, but for everything else I liked the 60mm perspective better.
Attached Images
 
matsumoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2006, 10:22 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

If I can only have one lens it will be MicroNikkor 60mm. It is very sharp, it is small and light, well proven. With F2.8 I can use it in low light too.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 6:08 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 109
Default

ruchai wrote:
Quote:
If I can only have one lens it will be MicroNikkor 60mm. It is very sharp, it is small and light, well proven. With F2.8 I can use it in low light too.
ruchai : I like yours pics. The Macro photography is another world , I just got the Sigma 105mm. f2.8 DG Macro and start to using with the Digi-Slave ringlight Ultra ll, and for my work is good and clear. When I need to exam skins injurys there is a example of skins burning. Carlitin
Attached Images
 
Carlitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 7:53 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Yes, macro is fun. I found out after taking macro pictures of insectsthat after all we men are not as important as we beleived tobe. We are just a small percentage of all the living things on earth. Most of us will sooner or later become insects or worms food. I wonderare theynow feeding us for their food like we do with farm animals? They produce fruits for our food just like we produce food for cattles and chickens!

Every night I went out with my macro lens I see more and more of these insects. Many had never recorded by men yet. This Rober Fly caught the beatle while flying. It injects some chemical into the weak point between the head and body strong shell to turn every parts inside the beetle into liquid and eat them all.

I always use the built-in pop up flash of the D50 for macro.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 8:26 PM   #18
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

I love Macros, but I must admit some insect shots just creeps me out, and then I saw burnt skin pics... now, that's just too much.:?
rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 9:24 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 109
Default

rey wrote:
Quote:
I love Macros, but I must admit some insect shots just creeps me out, and then I saw burnt skin pics... now, that's just too much.:?
rey : sorry for the shock pics. Here is something diferent . This part of the flower is around 10 mm. (les than 0.5 inch. is that better ????. Carlitin
Attached Images
 
Carlitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 9:35 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 109
Default

rey wrote:
Quote:
I love Macros, but I must admit some insect shots just creeps me out, and then I saw burnt skin pics... now, that's just too much.:?
rey : This is another one. I got this flower from5 inch away with the Sigma macro 105 mm f2.8......... a not so much Macro. Carlitin
Attached Images
 
Carlitin 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 10:12 AM.