Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   What Macro filter should I buy for Nikon D60 (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/what-macro-filter-should-i-buy-nikon-d60-157971/)

arafique Aug 1, 2009 2:36 PM

What Macro filter should I buy for Nikon D60
 
Hi, Actually I am looking to buy a Macro Lens or filter for my Nikon D60 with lens AF-S DX VR ZOOM-NIKKOR 55-200MM F/4-5.6G. I normally take birds eye picture in detail .. My question can someone suggest what kind of macro filter should I buy for my Camera?

Thanks

mrfearless47 Aug 1, 2009 5:25 PM

Nikon "filter"
 
Frankly, you should purchase a macro lens, not a macro filter. If you have lots of money, buy the Nikon 105 mm Macro. Otherwise, Sigma makes a nice and relatively inexpensive 70 mm Macro that delivers very nice images with a shallow depth of field.

TCav Aug 1, 2009 8:28 PM

There are three ways to do macrophotography.

You can use a close-up lens or filter. It fits on the end of an existing lens, attaching to the filter mounting screw threads. These are generally not very good, and they magnify the flaws in the lens it's attached to. These are the least expensive way to do macro work, but produce the lowest quality results.

You can use an extension tube. It fits between the lens and the camera body. Since they don't contain any optics of their own, they don't make th eimage any worse, but since they magnify the subject more than a close-up lens, they also magnify the flaws in the lens to a greater degree. Since they fit between the lens and the body, entension tubes are the least convenient way to do macrophotography.

You can use a macro lens. This is the best and most convenient way to to macrophotography, but it's also the most expensive.

If you think you can get what you want with a close-up lens, get a good one. Cheap ones will introduce too many flaws of their own. The OEM close-up lenses are some of the best, along with B + W, Heliopan and Hoya.

arafique Aug 1, 2009 8:38 PM

Thank you all. I really appreciate your reply

mtngal Aug 1, 2009 9:04 PM

Your original post confuses me. Are you saying you want to take detailed pictures of bird eyes? Or are you looking for a birds-eye view of very small objects? The two would require very different solutions. How far away will the camera be from the subject?

Assuming that you want something that focuses very close to your subject, then TCav gave you a quick run-down of various options for macro. The only thing I would add to what he said is that extension tubes absorb light, so you would need slower shutter speeds with them. While I occasionally (well, often) hand-hold for macro pictures, I do so using in-camera stabilization or a flash off-camera.

You might want to check out the Raynox add-on lenses - I've seen good results with them. They seem to be better than the single element dioper filters, but are also more expensive.

A disadvantage to both the extension tubes and dioper filters/lenses is that you have to take them off to focus at infinity. That's an advantage to having a dedicated macro lens.

peripatetic Aug 2, 2009 2:19 AM

Macro tubes are now generally a lot easier to use than they used to be since many DSLR cameras now have magnified live-view.

Unfortunately they can be surprisingly expensive, though of course not as expensive as a dedicated Macro lens.

To be able to give more advice we definitely need to know the kind of thing you will be photographing.

newarts Aug 2, 2009 6:52 AM

Achromatic filter option
 
Achromatic close-up lenses are a reasonable option; with a zoom lens they give a range of magnifications and good center image quality.

The $50 Raynox DCR 150 is a convenient clip-on lens that with your zoom would give magnifications of about 1:1 at a working distance of about 8". It is a nice addition to one's walk-about kit. I carry and use one frequently although I have good macro lenses as well.

The benefit of "real" macro lens is that it will provide high quality images all the way across the frame and not just in the center. This is less of a problem than one might think as most close-up photos are of a subject in the center of the photo.

Here's a quarter of an LCD screen shot with a good Tamron 90mm macro lens at about 1:2
http://newarts.com/images/Tamron90F11.jpg

Here's the same lens with a Raynox DCR 150 added.The center is just as good, but the corner is not so good.
http://newarts.com/images/Tamron90Raynox150F11.jpg
The Raynox' good image quality region is a circle that occupies about 2/3 of the photo frame. In my view this loss of edge quality can be lived with as a trade off for the cost and convenience of the Close-up attachment.

arafique Aug 2, 2009 2:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtngal (Post 988608)
Your original post confuses me. Are you saying you want to take detailed pictures of bird eyes? Or are you looking for a birds-eye view of very small objects? The two would require very different solutions. How far away will the camera be from the subject?

Assuming that you want something that focuses very close to your subject, then TCav gave you a quick run-down of various options for macro. The only thing I would add to what he said is that extension tubes absorb light, so you would need slower shutter speeds with them. While I occasionally (well, often) hand-hold for macro pictures, I do so using in-camera stabilization or a flash off-camera.

You might want to check out the Raynox add-on lenses - I've seen good results with them. They seem to be better than the single element dioper filters, but are also more expensive.

A disadvantage to both the extension tubes and dioper filters/lenses is that you have to take them off to focus at infinity. That's an advantage to having a dedicated macro lens.

First I wanted to say thanks for every who are trying to help me I really appreciate your replies. MTANGAL, Thankf for your reply. Yes I am looking for a birds-eye view of very small objects. If I look in the birds eyes with magnifying glass, I can see all the small object in detail which I can not see with bare eye.


thanks

arafique Aug 2, 2009 2:43 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by peripatetic (Post 988636)
Macro tubes are now generally a lot easier to use than they used to be since many DSLR cameras now have magnified live-view.

Unfortunately they can be surprisingly expensive, though of course not as expensive as a dedicated Macro lens.

To be able to give more advice we definitely need to know the kind of thing you will be photographing.

Here is pictures of the pigeon eye, this is what I m trying to do, trying to do.

thanks

TCav Aug 2, 2009 3:31 PM

Cool. I guess.

For that, you should use a macro lens. It would give you a 1:1 magnification. That is, an object that is 23.6mm x 15.8mm will fill the frame.

Nikon makes a very good Macro lens that is stabilized, so if you're not using a tripod or other support, it's a good choice. It's available from Adorama for $900: http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVR.html

There are other macro lenses from Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, that are also very good, but they're not stabilized so you'll need to use a tripod.

A longer lens would be better than a shorter lens, becasue you'll be able to put some space between the camera and the subject, so lighting will be easier to control. The Sigma and Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro lenses let you be as far as 18 inches from the subject, but a 50mm macro lens will require you to be as close as 7.5 inches. But, naturally, shorter lenses are less expensive.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:23 AM.