Macro photography

sarir97

New member
Hey guys. 1st post here. New to "serious" photography.

I have a D90 and a few kit lenses (18-55 and 70-300). I also just purchased the 50mm prime f/1.8G for indoor portraits along with the SB-910 flash. I want to get into macro, but don't "yet" want to dish out >500$ for a dedicated macro lens, especially since I'm just starting out. I've read about close up filters and extension tubes as good alternatives.

Questions: between filters and extension tubes, which would you pick? Which brand? And if you picked closes-up filters, for which of my lenses?

Many thanks.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
Seriously.......I would pick neither. There's nothing like a dedicated macro lens. Take a look at Tokina, Tamron and Sigma macro lenses (in that order) as a cheaper alternative. You might even consider a previously owned lens, depending on what size you want. What kind of macro are you interested in? That will dictate the size of lens you'll want to get. My suggestion would be to start with at least a 60 or 90mm macro. However, if budget is a serious concern, then go for the extension tubes.
 

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
I have the Sigma 105 mm 2.8 and think it is a fine macro lens. It is very tight on focus but sharp as a tack when locked in. I use it primarily manual focus but it is AF but especially at the lower f the DOF is very shallow thus making it more reliable manually focused, I get in focus what I want and not what the lens thinks I want.
 

Berkerk

Senior Member
I'd pick extension tubes over, filters. The most popular/available are Kenko but I've seen good things written about the Polaroid, both of which are AF enabled. If you're on a really tight budget forget the AF ones and just pick up some manual ones, it won't really matter which brand. Your 50 will be best, reversed it'll be even better!
 

warriormom

Senior Member
i'm gonna jump in on this topic because i'm kind of in the same boat. i am looking at lenses and based on a few different suggestions from fotojack, ihave been looking at the
transparent-pixel._V192551059_.gif
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens . i just now looked at the tokina equivalent and there is over a $300 difference. i think that difference probably has a lot to do with the VR element of the nikon lens. is the VR capability super important for macro? i would think it would be. also, i am looking at one of these ring flashes that mounts on the lens. anybody have experience with those?
 

Berkerk

Senior Member
For me VR is fairly irrelevant (and I have the 105 Nikkor) as I use a tripod and macro slider (Velbon) most of the time. I just use a manual off camera flash (Yongnuo 560) so can't comment on the ring flash, although if you're looking at the cheap ones make sure it is a flash and not a constant light as these are under powered (the Viltrox JY-670 is new in the market but it's cheap and an actual flash rather than an LED light).
 

warriormom

Senior Member
if i use the ring flash, am i possibly opening myself up to be able to hand hold the camera rather than use a tripod? i hate to think of limiting myself to tripod-only shots. i know people do it, but HOW?
 

Berkerk

Senior Member
Focusing is your real issue, a camera movement of a couple of mm makes a world of difference when the lens is wide open, so a flash will allow you to stop it down and still have a quick shutter speed. What are you hoping to shoot - flowers, bugs, etc?
 

warriormom

Senior Member
yibel, can you link to or share some shots with your 105mm sigma? i am now thinking that 105 may not be 'close' enough to do what i want. i am starting to wonder if i should lean a little more toward 180 or 200...hmmm. so difficult. guess i could make the hour trip to the nearest cam shop and have a peek through one.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
When using a lens with VR...or any other kind of vibration reduction, it is recommended to turn OFF the VR function when mounted on a tripod. VR and its equivelents are only recommended for handheld shots.
 

Ruidoso Bill

Senior Member
[QUOTEyibel, can you link to or share some shots with your 105mm sigma?][/QUOTE]

Go to page 3 of my gallery, the flower shots were done with the Sigma.

dsc_6029.jpg

This was from my gallery page 3, low res shot 640 X480
 

Mike150

Senior Member
i'm gonna jump in on this topic because i'm kind of in the same boat. i am looking at lenses and based on a few different suggestions from fotojack, ihave been looking at the
transparent-pixel._V192551059_.gif
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens . i just now looked at the tokina equivalent and there is over a $300 difference. i think that difference probably has a lot to do with the VR element of the nikon lens. is the VR capability super important for macro? i would think it would be. also, i am looking at one of these ring flashes that mounts on the lens. anybody have experience with those?

I have the Nikon 105mm 2.8 When I use it on my tripod, VR is turned off. This is most of the time but I am often out and don't have time to set up the tripod. As I'm old and not that stable anymore, I feel the VR has saved a lot of shots for me.
 

Ranie

Senior Member
i'm gonna jump in on this topic because i'm kind of in the same boat. i am looking at lenses and based on a few different suggestions from fotojack, ihave been looking at the
transparent-pixel._V192551059_.gif
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens . i just now looked at the tokina equivalent and there is over a $300 difference. i think that difference probably has a lot to do with the VR element of the nikon lens. is the VR capability super important for macro? i would think it would be. also, i am looking at one of these ring flashes that mounts on the lens. anybody have experience with those?

Go for the Tokina 100mm Macro. Beats the Nikon and Canon counterpart in this focal range.
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro AT-X PRO D AF
 

warriormom

Senior Member
yeah, but see, now i'm thinking i will go for the 180 mm. you can always get further away, but you can't get closer. i like REALLY small things. :)
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
yeah, but see, now i'm thinking i will go for the 180 mm. you can always get further away, but you can't get closer. i like REALLY small things. :)

Yes, but don't forget that the longer the lens the less depth of field you will have. You'll have to shoot with a very small diaphragm to get your subject mostly in focus. In the full sunlight it's usually no problem, but when you get into the shadow…
Personally I'm very happy with the 105. And I did buy extension tubes so I can get even closer and use my 70-200 or tamron 28-200 and have more leeway.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
ok, another question then: if i get the vr lens can i shoot without a tripod in certain well-lit situations?

It has little to do with situations being well lit. It has everything to do with unintended camera motion. Try this little experiment: take a small penlight, go into the bathroom, turn the bathroom lights out. Turn on the penlight and shine it on the mirror. See how steady you can keep your light on one spot while holding your arm straight out. That's the kind of shake you DON'T want in your camera or lens. :)

It also has to do with shutter speed, aperture and subject. Are you shooting something that's moving fast? Is it static? Far away? Near?
I would suggest you experiment with your gear and see what works for you. Maybe you're one of those rare individuals that has rock steady hands and you don't need a tripod or monopod. If you're not, then a tripod and/or monopod is for you. Unless you like blurry photos. ;)

This might also help you in explaining VR: http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm
 
Last edited:

sarir97

New member
OK, an update and a question. The update is that I purchased Kenko extension tubes. I hooked the 36 and 12 mm extensions up to my 50mm lens to get near 1:1 magnification. The first thing I noticed is that the subject has to be almost touching the lens for it to be in focus, which ruins the light and creates shadows. Second, and here comes the question, I can't focus at infinity anymore! Am I missing something, or is this normal behavior? Do dedicated macro lenses behave this way?
 

Photowyzard

Senior Member
I started out with screw on filters. I then progressed to extension tubes. I tried reverse lens mounts.

And eventually, I purchased a Nikon 105mm VR lens and never looked back. This is, by and large, one of the best lenses for macro photography, in my opinion. If you can't afford it, just save, be patient and wait, you won't regret it.

If you want to get started right away, get extension tubes first. These are very inexpensive and do the job.

In regards to tripod use, the vast majority of the macro images I have taken are on a tripod. Macro photography has an extremely limited depth of field and you will always be struggling with getting an image in focus exactly where you want it. It is the nature of the beast. A tripod is an absolute must. The more weight you add to the camera, the harder it will be to keep it steady, hand held. Especially, if you start to get tired holding it.

A remote release is also a very good idea.

I picked up my extension tubes from fotodiox.com

http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=148

$14.95 for a set of 3. They are an inexpensive set and did the job. Now, they collect dust mostly. I still use them occasionally, but the 105mm is my go to for about 98% of the macro images I take.

(oops, just realized you bought the Kenko. Still check out fotodiox for other macro stuff)

If you are bitten by the macro bug, start off with inexpensive stuff. You can upgrade to better later. I picked up filters from fotodiox as well and a lens reverse ring. I use the reverse ring more often as it gets in really close.
 
Last edited:
Top