Macro lens questions

I would like to get a macro lens for shooting insects and secondary small flowers and such. I am looking at the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G for my D5100.

My question, and I apologize if I explain this poorly as I am venturing into new territory.

Bug is 1/4" (.63 cm) in length or smaller. Of course we want to do a pretty good job filling that bug in our frame. How close do I need to get? Ideally not too close as to disturb the bug, but still being able to fill the bug in the frame. Is this lens going to allow me to be back a few feet to fill the frame or how close can I expect that I would need to be?

I've looked at a lot of great pictures but they don't tell if they have been cropped down, how close they were, or how far back they were.

​Thank you everyone.

The 40mm micro is a good close up lens, but not that close to bugs. I'd look at the Fx 60mm or the Dx 85mm. Ultimate would be one of the fx 105's

I tried to get close to a ladybug about 5 cm and it was a great photo. No I didn't keep it.

You can go 30 cm to a subject and it turns out very huge. But as you know, as close as possible is great to come nearly to a macro photography.

You need more focal length for bugs, they just move around too much to be able to get close easily....it isn't like shooting flowers. With the 40 you'll be almost nose-to-nose with the bug.

crycocyon said:

With the 40 you'll be almost nose-to-nose with the bug.

Click to expand...

That made my laugh cos' I was imagining it :victorious:

I have the 40mm 2.8. It is a great lens and is one of my favorites. Perfect for flowers, and also a good prime walk around lens, Very sharp. For bug? Not so good. I have gotten a few great bug shots with it but it is really to close. I was cheap and I could afford it at the time and my main reason for the lens was flowers. For bugs I would probably go for the 105 1st and the 85 2nd

And if you have the money, even a 200....

I wonder if any of the modern Nikon zooms have macro? I had an old 100-300 Nikkor that could get pretty close and was perfect for long distance discretion. Mind you, it wouldn't be able to equal a macro but the bugs you are shooting are not too tiny either.

Moab-

i know the passion you have for photography, so if am right & your ultimate goal is to get the best pics - go for the 105mm.
There is NO replacing the quality of a 105mm, maybe close by the 200mm

If you feel the 105 is a bit too much of a stretch money-wise, then the 85mm would do...
You can allows buy bellows & extension tubes and a lot of other thingies to make it better...

Here's a test for you, to see if it's worth spending all that moolah on the 105mm.
Buy a pair of reversing rings off eBay... Try them on your camera & shoot some bugs..
If you feel you are still just as interested in macro, then go in for the 105mm
If it doesn't peak your interest all that much, then save yourself some money & make do with the reversing rings & your 35mm (which i must say is a fantastic combo by itself)

Here is an example of a nifty fifty F1.8 original and cropped files...I was about 2 feet away for this shot...

It's not a macro lens...

I did some macro shooting yesterday and I was going to post this jumper in the macro section. Here is an example of how close I was and how close I cropped it to fit the frame. I lost a lot of picture but, I can still print this in a 4x6. I was about 6-8 inches back for this guy.( any closer it wont focus) You can see by the screw head he wasn't very big. I used the 85mm macro dx handheld in manual mode. With a longer reach you don't have to get as close with larger bugs, just as long as you are in focus on the subject. Then you can crop it tighter.

Nice shot... I am guessing even with the crop that you can print larger than 4x6..

Pat in NH

I would go with the 105mm. 55mm & 105mm, and for things like insects, the 105mm is the much better lens. You don't have to be on top of the creepy crawly, and if you need to additional light, you can use flash with much less problems because you are not right on top of the insect.

Depending on how large or small your subject is, you may still have to crop the photo.

You can Rocky. I normally print my bugs in 4x6. This cropped picture is almost 1g in size. I do love to shoot macro and When the situation is good, I try to use a tripod and mirror up. I was against the fence for the jumper.

I went for Extension tubes first..Just incase

You can get results like this :


Bubbles and Candy-2 by Mr K.Smith, on Flickr


Bubbles and Candy-4 by Mr K.Smith, on Flickr

But you have to be practically touching the subject..

Not long now and I can afford my Nikon 105mm

It was definitely worth spending a few Pounds on Tubes just to make sure I liked Macro though

Take a look at the Tamron 60mm and 90mm - very good lenses. Take a look at Sigma's offering to. I know the 40mm is cheap, but not worth getting in my opinion. If you are wanting to do bugs at a later time, you are going to have to get another lens. Stick with longer focal lengths, like a 90 or 105. In addition, look on the used marker. You can get a Nikkor 105mm AF-D macro lens for cheap if you look around.