Nikon Lens for Close-Up Photography

What you want is a macro lens that can reproduce images at a 1:1 ratio. Macro photography is a lot of fun, but just because these lenses can shoot at f/2.8 (most of the time) doesn't mean that you should shoot at f/2.8. Every lens has a critical sharpness setting, for example on my Nikon f/1.4 50mm lens it is best to shoot at f/5.6 for primo sharpness whereas on my f/1.8 50mm Nikon it is f/6 for primo sharpness. On most macros you will see ideal sharpness around f/4 - f/8

That being said, I wouldn't buy a 60mm macro lens because I want more reach on my macro shooting. Everyone likes to shoot bugs but having to get right on top of them sucks. Even shooting the infamous eyeball shots sucks because you have such a close min. focus that you want a bit more reach. The lens crs suggested is a great lens at my prefered focal length (105mm). The VR feature is great and helps get really usable results handheld (another note: most of the shooting you do for macro photography should have a monopod or tripod involved because you want SHARP images if you are going to be looking at something so small being so magnified).

Personally I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 that I use for my macro work and love it as a macro lens, but it also excels as a portrait lensand mild telephoto (with the crop factor it acts like a 155mm lens). I use it on a lot of weddings and actor headshots with f2.8 being ideal for soft delicate images and f/4+ being for sharpness. They can be used for a lot of different purposes but when shopping pay attention to focal length and min focus distance as these are the main concerns (other than sharpness which should be everyones first concern with every lens). Personall, I just don't do a lot of macro work right now.

Macro photography is a lot of fun and opens up a whole new world of shooting.
 
The specifications of this lens says that it has a minimum focusing distance of 1' that doesn't seem to be very close relative to other macro lenses.
 
1' is really bad. You should be comparing inches not feet but I can say on that 105mm Nikon it really is about 6" min focus (from my use of it)

EDIT:

And I looked on B&H and it says 12.4" for the Sigma 105mm that I own and it's no where near that long... It gets a perfect macro 1:1 with dead on focus around 5". Something is screwy with these numbers
 
Currently, I have 4 lens:

- Nikon 18-55mm - Came with the camera - My wife uses this one.
- Nikon 35mm 1:2 - I rarely use it
- Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 - I rarely use it
- Nikon 85mm 1:1.8 - I love it and use it all the time, but it stinks for close up

It sounds like a 105 lens is the way to go for Micro/Macro.

I am familiar with the Nikon lens, but not that familiar with Sigma. Anything I should know about them? Differences?

Thanks,

Chris
 
Chris Messineo said:
Currently, I have 4 lens:

- Nikon 18-55mm - Came with the camera - My wife uses this one.
- Nikon 35mm 1:2 - I rarely use it
- Nikon 50mm 1:1.4 - I rarely use it
- Nikon 85mm 1:1.8 - I love it and use it all the time, but it stinks for close up

It sounds like a 105 lens is the way to go for Micro/Macro.

I am familiar with the Nikon lens, but not that familiar with Sigma. Anything I should know about them? Differences?

Thanks,

Chris
Click to expand...

The Sigma has a Push / Pull activation for the manual versus autofocus that takes an extra 10 minutes to get used to. Otherwise, you just have to be careful with third party lenses as to sample differences. I like Sigma lenses but make sure that my sample is ideal, because there are some copies that are just too soft or can't focus correctly. Then again, everyone should do this with all lenses as I went through 2 copies of my 85mm f/1.4 before I found one that had edge to edge sharpness.

Personally, I like the Sigma and from handling the Nikon I don't think it is worth 2x the price for VR. That being said, the Nikon is worth 2x the price over the Sigma when we are talking 70-200 VR versus the Sigma offering (even though it isn't 2x the price).

I like Nikon glass a lot but when it comes to my macro and wide angle I like Sigmas (105mm & 10-20mm). Sigma also makes a couple of really nice primes and I think that they are super sharp, just hard to find lately.

Getting back to the original question, though, the only difference between the Nikon and Sigma ultimately is going to be the push/pull on the Sigma. It is not really a big deal to me though.
 
Jeremy, Thanks for the Sigma/Nikon comparison.

Alvarez, I got the prime lenses back when I was using them with a 35mm adapter for my HVX. I am still such a newbie with still photography, that I am learning the pros and cons of each lens. I fell in love with the 85 so fast, I don't think I've really given the 50 or 35 a fair chance. I'll have to give them another try.

crs127, That sounds like an interesting (and cheap) option, but how is the quality?
 
Chris
quality is decent, you can pay alot more for the better lenses, still cheaper than buying macro lens.
 
Casita%20%23350%20(12).jpg


This was shot on a rebel xt with a vivitar 100mm macro via EOS to pentax K adapter. I can even focus closer and add on a macro adapter for some extreme shots. It is a cheap lens that doesn't have good contrast but the point is that for $70 at the B&H used department you can get these results.
 
I have the Nikon 105mm VR and am really happy with it. I would recommend getting the close up flash kit with it as well.

Allen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top