High Tide Aquatics

In the Market for a Macro Lens - help me decide!

Thales

Past President
Hey guys,

I am finding the different macros confusing, but I need to buy one this week for a trip to Peru. :D
I have borrowed Greshs Nikkor 60 mm 1:2.8 and I like it very much.

What do those numbers actually mean? :D And, what benefits would going with the 105 or the 105 VR get me? Explanations or links with explanations would rock my world.

Thanks for holding my hand here.

RR
 
Is a 200mm just crazy?

And what about teleconverters? They can be used on both macro and regular lens? To make my 200 a 400?

I am soooooo confused today!
 
[quote author=Thales link=topic=2783.msg29306#msg29306 date=1199572466]
Hey guys,

I am finding the different macros confusing, but I need to buy one this week for a trip to Peru. :D
I have borrowed Greshs Nikkor 60 mm 1:2.8 and I like it very much.

What do those numbers actually mean? :D And, what benefits would going with the 105 or the 105 VR get me? Explanations or links with explanations would rock my world.

Thanks for holding my hand here.

RR
[/quote]

I'll give you the meanings of the words without technicalities.

60mm means you have to be closer than a 105mm to the subject to get the same magnification. So if you shoot a coral with your 60mm lens, and then you swap on the 105mm and you want the same crop, you have to move way back to get the same shot.

2.8 is the maximum aperture. The smaller the number, the bigger the aperture, and then more shallow the depth of field. So at 2.8 you will have A LOT out of focus, and a very small plane that is in focus. Great for selective focusing!! Also since the aperture is bigger, the shutter speed is faster, so it's great for lower light shooting as well. So a 2.8 basically means that's the maximum aperture, of course you can set it to f/8 to whatever the minimum is (f/22?). I like 2.8 because you can do either extreme selective focusing, or none at all, you have that option.

The benefits of the 105mm is that you don't have to be as close to your subject to get the same crop as that of a 60mm. So if you want to take a picture of a coral really far in your tank at 1:1, the longer focal length might be better for you if you can't dive in there and get close.

The VR is vibration reduction, meaning it helps you keep steady at slower shutter speeds. Basically if you're at F/4 aperture, VR will increase your shutterspeed to about 2-3 stops wider aperture, so it'll be something like a F/2 speed. They do this not by actually changing shutter or aperture, but by reducing the vibrations you create. This helps a lot in lower light / hand holding for long lenses.

The longer the lens (higher focal length), the more exaggerated your movements will be. Think of a ferris wheel, the middle travels very slow, and as you go outwards it travels much faster. So at 200mm any tiny movement will be multiplied by a lot more than a 60mm would. That is one of the big drawbacks of having a 200mm. I'd suggest shooting with a monopod in daytime, or tripod for sure in lower light with a 200mm. IMO 105mm to 150mm is great for outdoors shooting. 200 is pushing it, unless you want to get into more bird like things where you really can't get close. IN that case I'd go for 400 - 600mm type lenses, but I don't think there's a 1:1 magnification macro lens in that focal length.
 
Gotcha Art. Thanks. My brain was completely addled and things that used to make sense stopped making sense.

I'll go with the 105, just have to decide if the VR is worth it or not. I hate decisions like this. :D

I was reading about a teleconverter for both macro and regular shots. I will bee shooting birds and stuff, and it looks like a teleconverter will allow me to extend my big lens and extend a macro lens as well. You ever use one?
 
Rich,

I have the Nikor 60mm macro and I really wish I would have gotten the 105mm. Though I am sure some of it is just my poor skills combined with the bow in my tank, I can't seem to get those winning shots I had hoped for. I love it for outdoor stuff but as I said for my tank it leaves some to be desired.
 
[quote author=Thales link=topic=2783.msg29315#msg29315 date=1199580207]
Gotcha Art. Thanks. My brain was completely addled and things that used to make sense stopped making sense.

I'll go with the 105, just have to decide if the VR is worth it or not. I hate decisions like this. :D

I was reading about a teleconverter for both macro and regular shots. I will bee shooting birds and stuff, and it looks like a teleconverter will allow me to extend my big lens and extend a macro lens as well. You ever use one?
[/quote]

VR is worth it to me, otherwise I would just pickup a Sigma 105mm F/2.8 instead. Hand holding even in bright daytime with any shake sucks really bad. 105mm is a pretty far throw, VR would come in handy. Though people with surgeon hands like Eric don't really need it, it definitely helps. Plus if you don't like it (for some reason) just turn it off, or let me use it ;) I will one day replace my 105mm Sigma with the Nikon with VR... but only if for some reason I break my sigma, cuz that thing rocks.

I've never used a teleconverter so I have no experience with them =/ Eric has used them though, ping him with an email.

[quote author=seminolecpa link=topic=2783.msg29317#msg29317 date=1199582495]
Rich,

I have the Nikor 60mm macro and I really wish I would have gotten the 105mm. Though I am sure some of it is just my poor skills combined with the bow in my tank, I can't seem to get those winning shots I had hoped for. I love it for outdoor stuff but as I said for my tank it leaves some to be desired.
[/quote]

For our tanks, I'd usually suggest going with 105mm or 150mm, mostly because we can't get that close to the corals before hitting the glass of the tank. It's amazing how close you need to get for 1:1 or better magnification.
 
Ok.
The question of the night will be go with VR or go with teleconverter. If the teleconverter will let me take pick far away better with the 18-200, thats a good deal. Maybe. Eric, stop spending time with your family and help me spend money! :D
 
Anyone have opinions on the Sigma 150? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00063KO5C/interactiveda282-20

Why go with the 105 over the 150?
 
[quote author=Thales link=topic=2783.msg29358#msg29358 date=1199651700]
Anyone have opinions on the Sigma 150? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00063KO5C/interactiveda282-20

Why go with the 105 over the 150?
[/quote]

I've never heard a negative on the 150, in fact most sigma macro users use the 150 for some reason. The 105 is also great, on par with sharpness with other 105's. I like the build quality, and you've seen my macros, it does a good job.

105 because it doesn't require you to be TOO far from the subject, shorter focal length so less "shaking" at the long end =)

But in all honesty, I'm not too sure what would be better, maybe the quality / performance of the lenses?
 
A lot of people like the 150mm over the 105mm since it's a more versatile general macro lens. Most often, it's used for bugs and such, where working distance is more of an issue. For aquatic photography, unless you have a lot of room to go with, the 105mm does the job. Also, consider the speed that is required to handhold the lens. The rule of thumb is generally 1/focal length. With the 105mm, you're looking at 1/100 whereas with the 105mm, you're looking at at least 1/150. Size is another negative for the 150mm. It's a pretty hefty lens.

With teleconverters (TC), it's a dual edge sword. It will allow you to extend the lens, but at the cost of light and sharpness. Nikon has 3 TC: the 1.4x, the 1.7x, and the 2x. The 1.4x is the best of the three and the 2x is the worse of the three. You lose a lot of sharpness and contrast w/the 2x and I would only use this if you REALLY, REALLY need the shot. The 1.7x is a great compromise and many people often chose this over the other two. The way it works is that with the increase in focal length, you lose stops of light. With the 1.4x, it's 1 stop of light, the 1.7x is 1.5 stop of light, and the 2x is 2 stops of light. If you were using it on say a 100mm f/2.8 lens, the 1.4x TC will turn that into a 140mm f/4 lens. With the 1.7x TC it becomes a 170mm f/4.8 and with the 2x TC it becomes a 200mm f/5.6 lens.

Looking at that fact, it would seem that going w/a 60mm and and some teleconverters. You can skip out on the longer focal length lenses; with the 1.7x TC, you'll have a 102mm f/4.8 lens. Sounds like a good combo since with macro work you'll most likely be stopping down beyond f/4.8 anyways. Well, the second part of the cons of the lens comes into play - sharpness. Micro/macro lenses have great glass elements on them and there is very little to unnoticeable distortion. With TC, it's another matter. The glass elements are as distortion free as on the macro lenses, so you will lose a bit of sharpness and distortion.

Lastly, there's the cost involved. The 60mm micro lens is around $400 by itself and teleconverters are around $350-400 each. You add those up, and you might as well spring for the 105mm VR lens. The VR will give you better sharpness and VR, and a faster f/2.8 if you want to shoot it at such a razor fine sharpness (at f/2.8, it doubles as a portrait lens).

If I was to chose a macro lens, I would take a look at the 90-105mm range for the most functionality. My list of preference would be in the following order: Nikon 105mm VR, Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm, Nikon 105mm.
 
Thanks!

In reality, what is the working distance for the 105 compared to the 150? This lens isn't just for aquaria, its is for bugs and such on our crazy trips.

You can use the teleconverters on the 18-200 with the same pros and cons? If true, the 105 and a teleconverter may be the way to go as being able to extend the big lens would be great too.

Super thanks again!
 
Working distance on the 105mm is about 8" from the tip of the lens or about 12" from the sensor. The 150mm is about 12" from the tip or 16" from the sensor. One of the primary reasons why the 180mm and 200mm lens are used so often for bugs is due to their longer working distance. For 180-200mm lens, the working distance is about 20" from the tip of the lens. For your application, the 1.4x or the 1.7x TC on the 105mm would make a very versatile setup, without having much issue w/distortion, sharpness, and contrast. Match it with a 1.4x TC, you end up w/a 147mm f/4 or with the 1.7x TC, a 179mm f/4.8 lens. If you plan on shooting a lot of bugs, then definitely the 1.7x TC to get more working distance.

With the 18-200mm lens, you can use the type 2 teleconverters which will retain the autofocus and VR feature. The issue with it is that the lens element on that lens isn't the greatest and when matched w/the teleconverters, you will have to stop down considerably to get sharpness out of the lens. Also, take into account the variable aperture on that lens. At 18mm, it's f/3.5, and at 200mm, it's f/5.6, when in fact that it starts becoming a f/5.6 lens as soon as you hit about 100mm. Then you add in the fact that most lenses are at their sharpest at least one stop down and you're effectively looking at a pretty slow lens. Also, with teleconverters, I forgot to add in that if the max aperture of the combo is greater than f/8, then you lose autofocus. This severely limits the 18-200mm lens since at about 100mm and above you're already at f/5.6. Adding the 1.4x TC to it, you're already at f/8 and you'll have to stop down. The 1.7x TC is out of the question since it's beyond f/8 and you lose autofocus.

If you're interested in trying out TC, let me know. I have all three TC (1.4TCII, 1.7TCII, and 2TCI) that I can bring it to the BOD meeting. You can just use it for your trip and bring the lens back to me (just make sure it's returned in the same condition). :)
 
[quote author=Ibn link=topic=2783.msg29371#msg29371 date=1199660280]

If you're interested in trying out TC, let me know. I have all three TC (1.4TCII, 1.7TCII, and 2TCI) that I can bring it to the BOD meeting. You can just use it for your trip and bring the lens back to me (just make sure it's returned in the same condition). :)
[/quote]

That would ROCK! Thanks!
 
Have any of you try these??
http://cgi.ebay.com/Extension-Tube-Macro-Ring-for-Nikon-D300-D80-D40-D40x_W0QQitemZ160195193490QQihZ006QQcategoryZ79000QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
 
K, I'll bring them to the meet and you can test out and take a TC with ya.

Phong, those are just simple extension tubes. If you really want to go with some extension tubes, go with the Kenko extension tubes. Those that you linked does not provide metering or focusing.
 
oh well another $17 down the toilet :( .. Thanks Eric..
I need to hang out with you so you can teach me some of your skills ;D ..
 
[quote author=Thales link=topic=2783.msg29430#msg29430 date=1199740587]
Sweet. Ordered the Lens, it will be here on Thursday. :D
[/quote]

which one did you order?
 
Back
Top