| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2007 12:09:40 AM · #1 |
| I have other toys I want before my macro, but doing a little research always helps. For those that own a macro lens, how did you decide on yours. I see so many different types, but can't really figure them out. I'm sure everyone is different as far as what they want to use it for, so here's what I'd like to use it for. Close-ups on flowers, set on a tripod aimed a table set with 'stuff', and if possible portraits. I plan on visiting the local store here and just playing around with the lenses to see what each of them does. Just wondering what made YOU choose your lens? |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:13:31 AM · #2 |
| One thing to consider is whether you're going to shoot insects or frogs or other living things that might get spooked by moving the lens close. If so, think about getting something in the 90-105 mm range rather than something shorter. I notice a lot of people seem to use the Sigma 105 around here. Nikon makes a similar focal length macro, with VR. I use the Tamron 90 and really like its sharpness. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:16:03 AM · #3 |
Make sure you go for a true macro (i.e. 1:1 magnification). Many lenses that say "macro" on them fall short of a 1:1 magnification.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:20:11 AM · #4 |
Sigma 105 and Nikon 105 are great...
The Nikon 60 is also very good.
--
The 105's will give you more working distance at 1:1 than the 60. The 105 will also let you keep the backgrounds MUCH cleaner than the 60mm would. The only trade-off there is that the depth of field on the 60mm is a good bit better.
I have a 105 and I've always enjoyed it. I used a 60 and thought it was nice, but I feel a 105 is a much better tool with many more benefits than the 60.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 02:50:21 AM · #5 |
| The Sigma 105mm is superb, but if I had the money and a sympathetic wife I would choose the Nikon 105 VR lens in a heartbeat...now, to convince my wife, that would be where my heartbeats would end... :-( |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 06:02:47 AM · #6 |
| I would agree that consideration of a closeup lens is a good idea, I would encourage buying one as a fairly high priority, they provide opportunities very different from other lenses. True 1:1, as dwterry mentions are not always fully disclosed, but are usually the norm for specialized micro/macro. I would not recommend any of my lenses as being the best of class, however they are what I have for closeup: vintage (1:2) Nikkor 55mm f2.8; (1:2) Canon 50mm F2.5; and (1:1) Kiron 105mm f2.8. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 06:33:41 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
and (1:1) Kiron 105mm f2.8. |
Hmmm...is it the Lester Dine ?
I've been looking for one of them.
bazz. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 07:17:21 AM · #8 |
| sir_bazz: it is a Kiron pentax k mount, not the Lester Dine Nikkor labeled dental version. Not for sale. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:49:56 AM · #9 |
Well, I'm a Canon user but for what it's worth, out of the 1:1 first-party options in Canonland (EF-S 60mm f/2.8, EF 100mm f/2.8, EF 180mm f/3.5L) I went for the 60mm EF-S.
After ruling out the 180mm for its stupid price my thinking went something like this: The 100mm is designed for full frame cameras. With my 1.6X and a 60mm I will get the same shot from the same distance as a 5D user with the 100mm (ignoring DoF issues! Although arguably the greater DoF generally offered by crop cameras[1] is a huge advantage for macro shooting). It won't be 1:1 because the sensor is smaller - so I'll have the extra advantage of being able to get closer shots by moving in to 1:1 range.
Also the 60mm was a bit cheaper, and the decision was finally made for me when I walked into the camera shop and they had a nearly new one for sale at a reasonable discount. I ended up getting the 17-55 at the same time for the same reason, quite an expensive trip that :).
I'm happy with my lens but I think if I was doing it again I might pick the 100mm. The 60mm does require you to get very close indeed for 1:1 and that is a problem for insects and other things that run away when you wave a camera at them (although I managed to get a reasonable shot for the insect challenge - fingers crossed on that one).
splidge
[1] And yes, I know that the extra DoF isn't actually caused by the crop any more than the "flattened perspective" is caused by the focal length of a longer lens. But the same argument applies - for a given framing of a given subject at a given aperture, the crop camera will either be at a greater distance or using a shorter focal length lens, both of which increase DoF. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:55:28 AM · #10 |
I'm curious about the same topic. Specifically, if you were to choose between:
1) Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.1 1-5x Macro
2) Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
hmmm |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:06:02 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by dleach:
I'm curious about the same topic. Specifically, if you were to choose between:
1) Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.1 1-5x Macro
2) Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
hmmm |
Both the lenses are for entirely different purposes. The 65mm has a minimum magnification of 1:1, and the 100mm has a maximum magnification of 1:1. If I shot Canon I would go for the 100mm, it is more versatile since it can focus to infinity. For extra magnification I would took towards extension tubes, or even reverse mounting a short lens on the macro lens.
Between a Nikon 60mm Micro-Nikkor and the 105mm Micro-Nikkor I would choose the 105. The longer focal length allows you to be a bit further away from your subject and helps with insects and spiders (my reversed 50 puts me very close). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 09:23:49 AM EST.
