Macro Lens on a D800 - Lens choice

M

muroshi

Well-known member
I need to shot an object of 3cm size, which should fill up the screen. Maybe even details of this object. Will a 100mm or 105mm f/2.8 lens suffice? What about space for lighting? Has anybody shot something like that? Examples?

From what I can find I have the following options:

An old Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8. No autofocus, but solidly built.
http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_131081.html

A new Nikon VR:
http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_84520.html
(Kenrockwell writes, it isn't any better than it's predecessor Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AF-D (which I can't find new anymore). And it's fully plastic and made in China..

There is the new Sigma (which according to Kenrockwell is inferior than any Nikon glass):
http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_237320.html

Tokina (cheap and according to Kenrockwell better than Nikkor - really?)
http://www.toppreise.ch/prod_357877.html
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm

If I have to go for a 200m (f/4.0) macro lens (not cheap!) I haven't a choice:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200mm-micro.htm
 
What camera are you shooting with ?

I own both the old Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AI-S and the 105mm f/2.8 AI-S, both lenses are very sharp and feature floating-elements that create continuous image optimization as you focus.
 
TheDingo said:
What camera are you shooting with ?

I own both the old Nikon 55mm f/2.8 AI-S and the 105mm f/2.8 AI-S, both lenses are very sharp and feature floating-elements that create continuous image optimization as you focus.
Click to expand...

I have to use it on a Nikon D800 (full frame).
 
muroshi said:
I have to use it on a Nikon D800 (full frame).
Click to expand...

The older Nikon lenses will only do half life-size on their own, so you need to add a dedicated extension tube to get 1:1 magnification.

The newer AF VR lenses are optically stabilized and can reach full 1:1 magnification without having to use an extension tube.

The least expensive lens to shoot 1:1 will be either the old 55mm f/2.8 or the old 105mm f/4.0, and both of these will require an extension tube to reach 1:1.

In terms of sharpness, they are all good, though the newer VR lenses are supposed to be a tiny bit better.
 
TheDingo said:
The older Nikon lenses will only do half life-size on their own, so you need to add a dedicated extension tube to get 1:1 magnification.

The newer AF VR lenses are optically stabilized and can reach full 1:1 magnification without having to use an extension tube.

The least expensive lens to shoot 1:1 will be either the old 55mm f/2.8 or the old 105mm f/4.0, and both of these will require an extension tube to reach 1:1.

In terms of sharpness, they are all good, though the newer VR lenses are supposed to be a tiny bit better.
Click to expand...

Can you illustrate this with a visual example?

Ken Rockwell says the newer Chinese Nikons are much lower quality.

Maybe the way to go then is:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/100mm-f28.htm

55mm seems to low for an 3cm object covering the screen.
 
I don't consider Ken Rockwell to be a reliable or useful source of information. The new Nikon 105mm f2.8G is an excellent macro lens. At maximum magnification a 3cm object will almost fill the frame of your D800. The end of the lens will be roughly 12cm from the subject so there should be enough room to light it. If the lens is too expensive for you to purchase, you can always rent one for your shoot.
 
noirist said:
I don't consider Ken Rockwell to be a reliable or useful source of information. The new Nikon 105mm f2.8G is an excellent macro lens. At maximum magnification a 3cm object will almost fill the frame of your D800. The end of the lens will be roughly 12cm from the subject so there should be enough room to light it. If the lens is too expensive for you to purchase, you can always rent one for your shoot.
Click to expand...

Is it better than the Sigma or Tokina for that matter? We can buy it for the shot, but we won't boil our hard earned cash if we can get the same result for less money.

As I understand you, if I need details from that object (for the arguments sake 1cm of it), I would need an 200mm. Correct?
 
Last edited:
muroshi said:
Can you illustrate this with a visual example?
Click to expand...

I don't own a D800, so I think the results from my GH3 camera are going to be nowhere near as detailed as a D800 would be.

muroshi said:
Ken Rockwell says the newer Chinese Nikons are much lower quality.
Click to expand...

I think he meant this in terms of the physical build of the lens, because Ken ends his Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR review with this statement...

"I've never used a sharper 105mm lens than this 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR."

The review site PhotoZone.de ended their review with this statement...

"In terms of sheer performance the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G was able to beat its already very good predecessor by a small margin."

So both of these review sites are saying that the VR version of the 105mm f/2.8 Micro lens is the sharpest Micro lens that Nikon has ever produced.
 
TheDingo said:
I don't own a D800, so I think the results from my GH3 camera are going to be nowhere near as detailed as a D800 would be.

I think he meant this in terms of the physical build of the lens, because Ken ends his Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR review with this statement...

"I've never used a sharper 105mm lens than this 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR."

The review site PhotoZone.de ended their review with this statement...

"In terms of sheer performance the AF-S 105mm f/2.8G was able to beat its already very good predecessor by a small margin."

So both of these review sites are saying that the VR version of the 105mm f/2.8 Micro lens is the sharpest Micro lens that Nikon has ever produced.
Click to expand...

I see, on the other hand he also states that the Tokina beats the Nikon and Canon, hence this website seems a bit inconsistent. I still hope somebody could join in, to give me an idea about sizes, as I'm very unfamiliar with macro photography and full frame.
 
muroshi said:
I see, on the other hand he also states that the Tokina beats the Nikon and Canon, hence this website seems a bit inconsistent.
Click to expand...

In Ken Rockwell's Tokina Micro review he states that the Tokina 100mm v/2.8 lens is...

"as sharp as Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 VR and 105mm f/2.8 AF-D. Any of these three lenses will let you get the best of Nikon's best D3X or D7000."

The only Nikon lens that this Tokina lens beats is the lower cost Nikon 85mm f/3.5 VR DX Micro lens, otherwise it's equal to the Nikon 105 f/2.8 Micro lenses.
 
But he also states:

"This Tokina has superior optics because it generates superior 18-point sunstars, which these other lenses can't do, or don't do well.
​
This Tokina is optically superior to Canon and Nikon's offerings because it has much less light falloff. "

and under recommendation:

"This Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AF Macro is a great lens for macro, and especially good for any use as a portrait or telephoto lens. It is probably the best 100mm or 105mm macro there is, and costs half of what other lenses cost.
​
If you want to shoot dedicated macro, 200mm lenses are better because you get more working distance between your camera and your subject to make lighting, and your subject, more comfortable.​
This Tokina's image quality is unsurpassed, and its ergonomics with the push-pull focus clutch are superior to both Canon's and Nikon's own 100mm and 105mm lenses!​
I prefer the optics of this Tokina to Nikon and Canon, because this Tokina uses the correct 9-bladed diaphragm, where Nikon uses either only 7 blades, or rounds their 9-blade diaphragms which eliminates sunstars. Canon is completely clueless with their 8-bladed diaphragms, or again attempts to round their 9-bladed diaphragms.​
With this Tokina lens, you've got a top-quality lens at a bargain price, and it's built to last. It has the same or better optics than either Canon or Nikon's lenses, and is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and handles better."
​
 
muroshi said:
But he also states:
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of "sunstars", so this feature would do nothing for me. The lower vignetting does make a difference at wider apertures, but once you are a couple of stops down the difference is next to invisible.

My choice to buy a bunch of older Nikon AI-S lenses was largely influenced by my desire for a set of lenses with similar color and contrast characteristics, that could be used on almost any camera, that were all metal construction, and that were fairly easy to find used in "mint" condition. I paid about $300 for my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AI-S Micro that arrived in next to flawless condition, with no marks or scratches anywhere, it is very smooth focusing and optically flawless. Most of my other Nikon AI-S lenses are the same, so for me the best buy was finding these next to perfect condition AI-S lenses. Yes they're manual focus ( which I prefer for video ) and have no stabilization, but I don't feel they hold me back professionally in any way.

Personally, I think you're splitting hairs when it comes to Tokina vs Nikon vs Canon micro lenses, as all of these brands can produce totally professional results. In other words, any of these lenses is a great choice.
 
What I don't understand is your mentioning of 1:2 for the old 105mm nikkor, what's the visual difference to 1:1? I also would have prefered it, because I have 3 other old nikkors. But If I have to buy a tube to use it I'm probably better of with one of the newer lenses.

Yes, you're right, it more comes down to 105mm versus 200mm. And I would need examples to judge.

I'm more doubtful if I can focus on the D800 without any possiblity to have focus peaking.
 
muroshi said:
What I don't understand is your mentioning of 1:2 for the old 105mm nikkor, what's the visual difference to 1:1?
Click to expand...

1:1 magnification means that at closest focus your D800 camera can fill the image frame with an object that is 24mm x 36mm.

1:2 magnification means that at closest focus your D800 camera can fill the image frame with an object that is 48mm x 72mm.

So to get 1:1 magnification with the older lenses you have to use a dedicated lens extension tube that is made for the lens you are using. It's not that big of a deal, you just have to carry the extension tube with you when ever you want to shoot closer than 1:2 magnification.

muroshi said:
Yes, you're right, it more comes down to 105mm versus 200mm.
Click to expand...

At closest focus ( 1:2 magnification ) you are 6 inches from your subject with the 105mm lens, and this pretty much doubles to 12 inches away with the 200mm.

muroshi said:
I'm more doubtful if I can focus on the D800 without any possiblity to have focus peaking.
Click to expand...

All you need is a good field monitor or even a good TV set with HDMI inputs. It's very easy to tell if you are in focus with your D800 plugged into a 7 inch or bigger monitor. I have a $250 Samsung 5003 22 inch TV set that I use with my GHx cameras when I want to be sure I'm in absolute sharp focus. ( the color is not very good with this TV, but it's true a 1080p image so focus is very sharp. )
 
I see, the tube ads another variable I rather not want to juggle with.

I guess the closest I can get is 0.3 Meters anyway with the 105mm (at least they state this as a close focus range). How do you calculate 6 inches (ca. 15cm / 0.15m)?

Hence, the 105mms would give me a bit more room than the Tokina for lighting. But the difference is slight. I guess the 200mm is too costly, and it's only f4.0.
 
muroshi said:
I guess the closest I can get is 0.3 Meters anyway with the 105mm (at least they state this as a close focus range). How do you calculate 6 inches (ca. 15cm / 0.15m)?
Click to expand...

I was going from memory.

I just checked things with my Nikon AI-S 105mm f/2.8 Micro on my GH3 and measured roughly 23 cm from the front of the lens to my subject with the lens focused as close as it will go at magnification 1:2. ( when the lens is extended like this it's roughly 15 cm long )

...I think that maybe the 15 cm distance from lens to subject is at 1:1 magnification. ( I don't own the extension tube so I can't confirm this )
 
TheDingo said:
I was going from memory.

I just checked things with my Nikon AI-S 105mm f/2.8 Micro on my GH3 and measured roughly 23 cm from the front of the lens to my subject with the lens focused as close as it will go at magnification 1:2. ( when the lens is extended like this it's roughly 15 cm long )

...I think that maybe the 15 cm distance from lens to subject is at 1:1 magnification. ( I don't own the extension tube so I can't confirm this )
Click to expand...

Will this greater distance change:
1:1 magnification means that at closest focus your D800 camera can fill the image frame with an object that is 24mm x 36mm.
1:2 magnification means that at closest focus your D800 camera can fill the image frame with an object that is 48mm x 72mm.

?
 
muroshi said:
Will this greater distance change:
1:1 magnification means that at closest focus your D800 camera can fill the image frame with an object that is 24mm x 36mm.
1:2 magnification means that at closest focus your D800 camera can fill the image frame with an object that is 48mm x 72mm.
?
Click to expand...

Generally longer focal length lenses have a greater working distance from your subject, so the 200mm lens would let you work farther from your subject than the 105mm lens.

Things might be a little different with the VR lens because it's an internal focusing lens, and I suspect that it's optically increasing it's focal-length to achieve greater magnification while keeping a greater distance from your subject than the older non-internal focus lenses. I think this is how it's achieving 1:1 magnification at a greater distance than the older non-internal focus lenses.
 
The old poor mans way to cheat at macro is to reverse mount your lens (mount the lens filter threads to the the camera body with an adapter). You can get some excellent macros this way, but the down side is that your rear lens element is unprotected (unless you get a special adapter to protect it). If you do a lot of macros, you might wan't to get an actual macro lens. The only Tokina lens a I have is an 11-16mm 2.8, so I can't comment on their macro lens, but my 11-16mm is top notch and better than a number of my Nikon lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top