• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Macro lens choices...

Rod Snaith

New member
I've snapped a few hundred pics with my D60 now, and its time to look at a macro lens for playing around a bit. I'm trying to keep things inexpensive for now, as I really need to spend some bucks on an AF-S telephoto.

So I've narrowed things down to six inexpensive choices of AF macro (not AF-S, so I know I'll be manually focusing) lenses:

1) Sigma 28-80 D macro
2) Tokina 70-210
3) Nikon 70-210
4) Nikon 28-70
5) Nikon 35-70

The 210s I probably don't need, nor do I believe they are "true" macro lenses. Most of my macro shooting will be within a foot, but I've included them here just in case there is something "special" about one of them.

So any experiences with any of the above lenses? I snooped around today looking at reviews, and they all seem to come out ok, except for maybe the Sigma which reviews said got a little soft at 80mm, which is where the macro setting is.

Thanks in advance...

Rod
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Rod

You could consider an extension tube - this will allow your existing lens to focus closer than normal and likely cost a lot less than a macro lens. If you later get a true macro lens you could still use the extension tube with it.

Mike
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Rod,

I don't have any experience of these lenses, but as far as I can tell none of them are what is generally understood as 'true macro'. Sure, they have settings for close focus, but none of them give a 1:1 magnification. You may find that they don't fulfill your expectations.

I don't know how much you want to spend, but the Sigma AF 105mm f/2.8 EX macro DG would be an excellent choice for a 'true' macro lens.

Regards,

Stuart
 

Rod Snaith

New member
Thanks. From what others are telling me, it sounds like I'm much further ahead to purchase the Nikon AF 50mm 1.8 (which I was planning on already) and an extension tube. Optically superior to any of the cheap choices I listed, and like has been mentioned, I can use the extension tube later should I decide to spend the money on a good macro lens (like the Sigma 105).

So other than reducing light, does moving the lens away from the sensor reduce image clarity?

Rod
 
So other than reducing light, does moving the lens away from the sensor reduce image clarity?

No it will not degrade the image but it will increase the magnification which will show you all the flaws of the attached lens that might have been too small to see in normal operation. Use a good pro prime to reduce visible flaws at higher magnification whoever the manufacture is that you settle on.

I would test the extension tube with each lens you are considering buying and your camera to see what is acceptable to you.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Rod,

So other than reducing light . . .

Do note that the reduction in exposure (an increase in the "effective f-number" over the "actual f-number") at large magnifications does not result from using an extension tube to enable close focusing, but is a creature of the close focusing itself (even if achieved within the native range of the lens focusing mechanism)

Thus if we have a lens whose maximum actual aperture is f/2.0 (and lets assume that is for all settings of the focusing mechanism, not always true), and we can focus it closely enough to get a magnification of 1.0 (1:1), and do that, the effective aperture will be f/4.0.

Now if we have another lens whose maximum actual aperture is also f/2.0 (again at all settings of the focusing mechanism) but which cannot be focused closely enough to give a magnification of 1.0 (1:1), and we use an extension ring to allow it to be focused that closely, and do that, again the effective aperture will be f/4.0.

So this non-issue is not of itself a consideration in the choice to use of an extension tube or or to procure a lens with inherent close-focusing capability.

The fact that both the focal length and the maximum actual aperture may change with the setting of the focusing mechanism, in a different way for two lenses, and with a different implication depending on the setting of the focusing mechanism we may actually use (based on whether an extension tube is involved or not), is a further complication on the detailed results (which it is not usually practical to actually take into account).

But it is not the extension tube itself that is behind the reduction in exposure for close focus.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Stuart,

I don't have any experience of these lenses, but as far as I can tell none of them are what is generally understood as 'true macro'. Sure, they have settings for close focus, but none of them give a 1:1 magnification.

True also for the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, whose maximum magnification is 0.5 (1:2). So by that definition, it is not a "true macro" lens either.

Of course, you can buy a purpose-built accessory that will allow it to focus closely enough for a magnification of 1.0 (1:1), but we can make any lens do that with the appropriate accessory.

We also note that if we focus an 8x10 view camera to give a magnification of 1.0 (1:1), we can fill the frame nicely with an entire ladies high-heeled shoe, a shot that we would probably not consider "macrophtography".

The main point here is that the notion of a "true macro" lens is not a useful one.

Best regards,

Doug
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Doug,

The main point here is that the notion of a "true macro" lens is not a useful one.

Agreed, but my main concern was (as I said in my post) that Rod would spend his hard-earned cash on a lens which didn't do what he expected.

Regards,

Stuart
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
We also note that if we focus an 8x10 view camera to give a magnification of 1.0 (1:1), we can fill the frame nicely with an entire ladies high-heeled shoe, a shot that we would probably not consider "macrophtography".

Doug

But not an entire lady, unless she is some sort of remarkable contortionist


Enough of this silly nonsense - a half way decent 50 prime and an extension tube or two is a very useful way to work if you don't want to spend a reasonably significant amount of money on a macro lens. I say reasonably as both of my (remaining) zooms cost considerably more than the canon 100 macro.

Mike
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Stuart,

Agreed, but my main concern was (as I said in my post) that Rod would spend his hard-earned cash on a lens which didn't do what he expected.

And that point was very well taken.

I just feel the urge to quash questionable terminology, even when it is invoked in support of a worthwhile point!

Best regards,

Doug
 

Rod Snaith

New member
Thanks everyone. It looks like I'll be going with a Nikon AF 50mm 1.8 and extension tube. Then, if the macro bug really bites me, I'll look to a good dedicated macro lens.

As far as "true macro" and 1:1, to be perfectly honest, I really don't know what I need for certain. All I know is that my 18-55 VR isn't cutting it for getting crisp, close focus shots.

So any recommends on a decent extension tube with the electronics? I'd like more than just a "dumb" tube so I can use the autofocus on any other AF-S lens I get, and also have the metering information passed through.

Rod
 

StuartRae

New member
So any recommends on a decent extension tube with the electronics? I'd like more than just a "dumb" tube...

I don't know about Nikon, but I believe that Canon extension tubes contain L quality air ;)

Regards,

Stuart
 
If only Carla had let me buy that 45" x 60" view camera we saw on e-bay.

LOL.

How about this one from the time that prints were made in contact, not by enlarger.

But kidding aside, you are correct that image size has a bearing on the field of view at a given magnification, as long as the image circle is large enough to cover the sensor/film area.

Bart
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Bart,

LOL.

How about this one from the time that prints were made in contact, not by enlarger.

Fabulous. In fact, I had seen that before, and would have referenced it if I could have summoned it up!

But kidding aside, you are correct that image size has a bearing on the field of view at a given magnification, as long as the image circle is large enough to cover the sensor/film area.

Well, more directly, by definition, at 1:1 magnification, the object field is the same size as the frame! (Again, assuming no vignetting by an inappropriate image circle.)

Best regards,

Doug
 

Rod Snaith

New member
Odd how things sometimes work out. I was just getting ready to place the order for my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and a set of Kenko extension tubes. I decided to browse through eBay, and ran across a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro lens (which had been recommended to me by a photographer as an excellent 'amateur' macro lens) selling for $168 USD. Condition 9.5/10 with clean glass, so I pulled the pin on it.

Not a bad price, since the cheapest I could find new was $499 Cdn, and the extension tubes were going to cost me over a hundred bucks anyway.

Now the only dilemna I have is how to sneak the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 purchase past my wife. I promised her only one lens purchase over a hundred bucks this spring :D
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Odd how things sometimes work out. I was just getting ready to place the order for my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and a set of Kenko extension tubes. I decided to browse through eBay, and ran across a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro lens (which had been recommended to me by a photographer as an excellent 'amateur' macro lens) selling for $168 USD. Condition 9.5/10 with clean glass, so I pulled the pin on it.

Not a bad price, since the cheapest I could find new was $499 Cdn, and the extension tubes were going to cost me over a hundred bucks anyway.

Now the only dilemna I have is how to sneak the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 purchase past my wife. I promised her only one lens purchase over a hundred bucks this spring :D
Hi Rod,

I don't see the need for a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens right now. I'd have preferred you to get the longer Sigma but the 50 mm will do just fine. I use my Canon 50mm f2.5 Macro even for portraits and it gives a look I have been impressed with.

Hold of spending more money!

Asher
 

Rod Snaith

New member
I don't see the need for a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens right now.

Oddly enough, I thought about this yesterday. I'm going to try the Sigma 2.8 in lower light and see how it fairs. If I can get by with it, even if I have to soften the portaits a bit, I'll do that and buy a 50mm 1.4 AF-S later on this year.

Thanks for the help, all...

Rod
 
Another relatively cheap alternative for a genuine autofocus macro lens of quite good quality is the Tamron 90mm f2.8, about $US500 from B&H.

Regards,
Murray
 

Joel Schochet

New member
Another relatively cheap alternative for a genuine autofocus macro lens of quite good quality is the Tamron 90mm f2.8, about $US500 from B&H.

Regards,
Murray

Hi all,

Murray made a good point. But a better option, although not available until July, is the new Tamron macro 60mm f/2, which on a DX camera like the D60 is the equivalent of the Tamron f/2.8 both in terms of field of view and depth of field:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032401tamron60macro.asp

Joel
 

Rod Snaith

New member
I'd considered the Tamron 90mm (not the 60mm, of which I was not aware of), but decided I didn't want to spend $5 or $600 Cdn on a lens that I wasn't sure if I was going to use. When (or rather if) the macro bug bites me, I'll look at investing some dollars into a higher end macro lens.
 

Rod Snaith

New member
I recieved the Sigma 50mm f/2.8 yesterday afternoon and started snapping pics. Very sharp, radiant colors. I am impressed. I does seem to be very susceptible to the slightest camera shake, even when following the "shutter speed inverse of focal length" rule. <chuckle> Or maybe I'd just had too much coffee yesterday.

Anyway, one question for the crowd: Most of the macro lenses I looked at had a "macro/normal" switch, or, in the case of some telephotos, the lens entered macro mode at one end of the focal range. Not so with this Sigma lens. The only reason I ask is that I did have trouble achieving focus on objects more than a few feet away and thought maybe there was some way to get the lens into a "normal" mode. I'd hoped this lens would do double duty as a portrait lens until I get an AF-S 50mm f/1.4 (or other large aperature lens).

Rod
 

StuartRae

New member
Hi Rod,

I did have trouble achieving focus on objects more than a few feet away and thought maybe there was some way to get the lens into a "normal" mode.

I believe that your lens has a 'focus limiter' to stop excessive hunting over the complete focus range. On my Sigma 180mm macro it's a little 3-way slider switch. Position 1 limits the focus range to close objects, position 2 limits the range to far objects and position 3 allows the whole focus range to be used. I usually leave it on 3 because I keep forgetting to change it.

Regards,

Stuart
 

Rod Snaith

New member
Thanks Stuart, unfortunately I don't seem to have that on mine. My Sigma isn't the DG version, just the older AF 50mm f2.8. The only slider I see is for aperature ring lock :(
 
I does seem to be very susceptible to the slightest camera shake, even when following the "shutter speed inverse of focal length" rule. <chuckle> Or maybe I'd just had too much coffee yesterday.

Rod, the "shutter speed inverse of focal length" rule does not apply practically in Macro photography the way you'd expect it to. This is because, though focal length of your lens may stay the same (although some of them, mostly the internaly-focusing ones like Cano 100/2.8 Macro USM, actually change) the angle of view gets substantialy narrower when you extend the lens (move it away from the sensor/film).

At 1:1, your 50mm definitely does not have a "normal lens" angle of view, it becomes a telephoto lens. Similarly, at maximum magnification, my Olympus 20mm Macro lens becomes like a 600mm+ telephoto lens, and needing a shutter speed fo 1/500 - 1/1000 (or flash, more typically used) to get a steady shot hand-held!

Enjoy your lens, I've never met a Macro lens I haven't liked. They are consistently some of the sharpest lenses in any manufacturer's lineup, I've personally experienced this now via Canon, Olympus and Mamiya.
 
Top