In the market for a macro lense for my D5500

Tommy Walls

Senior Member
I'm torn between the Nikkor 85mm 3.5 micro and the Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro.

My main concern in the Tokina is that it's a full frame lense.

1. Is 150mm too long for a macro lense?

2. Will this lense on the d5500 body still produce true 1:1 ratio?

3. Will there be any distortion?

4. Will this lense auto focus on the d5500 body?
 
Last edited:

Moab Man

Senior Member
A long macro lens is a plus. Too often when trying to photograph little bugs and such you get too close and they split.

A full frame lens on a crop sensor is not a bad thing or a good thing so never sweat it. If it were DX lens to full frame then you are giving up part of the sensors image area. Just like the Tokina acting like a 150mm, the 85mm will act like a ~128mm lens due to the cropped sensor regardless of if the 85mm is a DX lens or not.

Yes you will still get 1:1

Distortion... every lens will naturally have a bit of distortion. This is easily corrected for in Camera Raw assuming you are using Lightroom or Photoshop.

Both lenses have built in focus motors - just checked the spec.
 
Last edited:

WayneF

Senior Member
I'm torn between the Nikkor 85mm 3.5 micro and the Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro.

My main concern in the Tokina is that it's a full frame lense.

1. Is 150mm too long for a macro lense?

2. Will this lense on the d5500 body still produce true 1:1 ratio?


1:1 macro is an area that complicates the 1.5x effective focal length notions. The 1.5x crop factor does still apply to the size of the field of view, but it does not exactly apply to macro 1:1. The 1:1 lens can still do 1:1 on either camera body.

This way.... For example, a U.S. penny is 3/4 inch diameter, about 19 mm.

Both DX and FX cameras will do the same 1:1 reproduction, which means at 1:1, the image of the penny will be the same size as the actual penny... 19mm. That is what 1:1 means.

However, the DX sensor is only about 16mm tall, and the FX sensor is 24 mm tall. So at 1:1, the DX penny image will be the same 1:1 SIZE, but in this case, all of its size cannot fit on the smaller sensor image. The DX image will be the same 1:1 magnification, but in this case, just not all of can show. In this case, 16 mm of the 19mm penny can be seen. FX can show 24mm height.

Another example, copying 35mm slides. That is a 1:1 job on a FX camera, but the DX sensor is smaller than the slide, so for that, you want only about 1:1.5 then, to fit the slide onto the smaller sensor.

So in both cases, with the same lens, the DX body would stand back a bit further, and use a bit less than 1:1.

But yes, the longer macro lens is normally a significant advantage in 1:1 macro work. It allows standing back 4 or 5 inches from the subject, instead of only a couple of inches. Only a couple of inches is a headache, might scare bugs up that close, and it can block the light from the subject. Longer is better, easier work.

However, there are downsides too. Maybe at times you do table top work, a much wider view with the subject at maybe a few feet distance instead of a few inches. Macro lenses are good for that degree of closeup too, however the cropped field of view on the long lens on DX may require that you stand well back to include the full view width.. maybe 6 or 7 feet in some cases (to include the whole table top desired), and sometimes, in some rooms, there may not be that much room available for the longer lens.
 
Last edited:
Top