Macro - Micro?

Lscha

Senior Member
If I wanted to start taking photos of water drops (such as dew) and close-up flowers and insects, which lens would you recommend that I save up for? I use a D3100. Thanks.
 

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
Nikon 105mm VR Micro ($924-ish) is where it's at. That is the cream of the crop. I have one and it is just stellar. You can opt for the 60mm version for less ($569-ish) , but personally, I dont think it has enough reach for insects. It would be fine however, for things that wont get scared and run/fly away. Then, there is always the 40mm ($269-ish) but I think that is just a waste.

I won't recommend any 3rd party macro lenses as I have no experience with them. I do however own 3rd party lenses that are stellar so don't count them out.
 

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
For you it may not be a waste, but if you are serious about Macro, or want to approach critters....a 40mm focal length wont cut it, as you would have to practically be on top of what you are shooting. (the focal length is what I was referring to as a waste).

It all comes down to your budget and how serious you want to take it. My 105 helps me make money, therefore i could justify the $900+ price tag.
 

jcottone45

Senior Member
Nikon 105mm VR Micro ($924-ish) is where it's at. That is the cream of the crop. I have one and it is just stellar. You can opt for the 60mm version for less ($569-ish) , but personally, I dont think it has enough reach for insects. It would be fine however, for things that wont get scared and run/fly away. Then, there is always the 40mm ($269-ish) but I think that is just a waste.

I won't recommend any 3rd party macro lenses as I have no experience with them. I do however own 3rd party lenses that are stellar so don't count them out.
Hi Joe, I have an older Non CPU Nikkor lens the 105mm F2.5 that does not have a macro/micro feature that I use & seems to work ok for my needs.Is this lens the forerunner of the lens you have???
 

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
The 105 2.8 I have was designed specifically for Macro work, and having the ability to focus from infinity to 1:1 life size. You may be able to get decent closeups with the old 105 (originally designed for portraiture i believe). The difference is really just the focussing distance. with your 105, you may only be able to focus on a subject, say 15 inches away....where I can focus on it, up to say 2 inches away (not sure of exact measurments, just making an example).
 

jcottone45

Senior Member
The 105 2.8 I have was designed specifically for Macro work, and having the ability to focus from infinity to 1:1 life size. You may be able to get decent closeups with the old 105 (originally designed for portraiture i believe). The difference is really just the focussing distance. with your 105, you may only be able to focus on a subject, say 15 inches away....where I can focus on it, up to say 2 inches away (not sure of exact measurments, just making an example).

I believe your 100% right on both counts. I'll give it a try & get back to you as to just how close I can get without distortion. I seem to remember not being able to get too close with it but its been a while & I usually use my 35mm f1.8 which also seems to get to within 9 to 10 inches of the subject.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
I think to Lscha the above would sound confusing. What is the difference being able to shoot from 15 inches and 2 inches? As long as I can get the job done, what is the issue?

If one is into macro, won't the 15 inches be advantageous since you can be further away from insects that may fly away if you get too close?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I use the 85m dx macro on my 3100. Took some great portrait shots with it too.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0033 (800x534).jpg
    DSC_0033 (800x534).jpg
    147.6 KB · Views: 358
  • DSC_0071 (800x641).jpg
    DSC_0071 (800x641).jpg
    197.9 KB · Views: 256

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
I think to Lscha the above would sound confusing. What is the different of being able to shoot from 15 inches and 2 inches? As long as I can get the job done, what is the issue?

If one is into macro, wont the 15 inches be advantages since you can be further away from insects that may flew away if you gets too closed?

Ummm the difference is, you can focus at 1:1 life size with a macro lens and not sacrifice quality. To get the same closeness with a non macro lens, that does not focus so close, you would be about a foot or more away, and you would have to severly crop the image, and lose tons of quality, therefore you are not getting "the job done". Well you are, just not to the same standards of using a quality macro lens. For situations where you cannot get so close, yes you can pull back some, hence the 105mm focal lenth. \
 

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
Is there an advantage of having the 60mm f/2.8D AF over the 85mm f/1.8G AF-S?

Apples and oranges here. the 60mm 2.8 is a micro lens. The 85 1.8 is not. It is more of a portrait lens.

I think the 85 you are referring to is Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Lens 2190 B&H Photo
this is a decent choice as well...in between the 60 and 105. Only difference is the 60 and 105 are FX lenses and the 85 is a DX. They do have an 85 in FX but its around $2k lol.
 

jcottone45

Senior Member
I think to Lscha the above would sound confusing. What is the different of being able to shoot from 15 inches and 2 inches? As long as I can get the job done, what is the issue?

If one is into macro, wont the 15 inches be advantages since you can be further away from insects that may flew away if you gets too closed?

I don't recall saying I had an issue with the distance from the subject, I only asked if my old 105mm lens could be the forerunner of the current 105mm lens.
I personally won't but the newer lens as I don't really need it for my purposes.
Joe on the other hand gets a great deal more use from his lens so it's worth the price.Besides he was right about my older lens being a portrait lens & I have hundreds (maybe 1,000 or more)of portrait shots taken with that lens to prove him right, so I'll stick to my Manual Focus Non CPU lens, besides on my d300s it's a 157.5 mm lens due to the 1.5 crop factor (or so Nikon say's so) but I am happy with it & I've used it for 32 years with out a hitch.!!!
 

Lscha

Senior Member
If I were to settle on the 60mm AF-D instead of the AF-S would I be sorry? I don't have the skill for any portrait work anyway and probably wouldn't be taking macros of anything that moved. Is manual focusing that cumbersome? I do it occasionally now and it doesn't seem to be bad at all.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
If I were to settle on the 60mm AF-D instead of the AF-S would I be sorry? I don't have the skill for any portrait work anyway and probably wouldn't be taking macros of anything that moved. Is manual focusing that cumbersome? I do it occasionally now and it doesn't seem to be bad at all.

I personally almost never use auto-focus for macro shots. But I find it works best with the D700 large viewfinder. I don't know what it would be like with the 3100. But you also have live-view so you should be OK. If it's a question of money, I've been more than happy with my Sigma 105 macro. If one could find a used one...
 

JoeLewisPhotography

Senior Member
Manual focus is not an issue. It can just be challenging at times, more specifically with moving objects. When doing macro work, you want to manually focus anyway. That being said, the AF-D wouldn't AF on your body anyway, even if you wanted it to. The AF-S however, has the built in motor, so for those times you DO want to AF, you can. The af-s version also has the nano coatings, which in my opinion is a nice feature. I think, the af-s would be the clear choice if it came down to those 2 to choose from.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
I have tried both auto and manual. Somehow, I just can't focus well om manual as I simply don't know when it is focused! The more I stare, the image gets blur.

The only problem with auto focus is when subjust is in low light and moving for me.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
I once owned the 85 Macro AF-S lens. Took great macro shots, but I didn't use it often enough, so I sold it and bought an 18-105 AF-S. :) By the way, macro is what Nikon likes to call theirmicro lenses, so don't get hung up on the nomenclature. :) They both mean the same in the long run. :)
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Yeah, mine was called micro. It was a very sharp lens maybe do to its construction. all metal parts, solid like a rock. It was a great lens but I just unable to appreciate it.
 
Top