Best Nikon macro lens?

[madugo]

Thai I just remembered something we all seem to have overlooked. The Nikons do not have full frame sensors which means they all have a magnification factor. The D90 has a 1.5 magnification factor which makes the effective range of a 105mm = 157mm. So ANY lens you chose will actually give you a natural telephoto effect. I know you have made your choice already but I had forgotten to mention that.

i think i told him once on the other tread...
nikon does have full frame body, for example the d700 and d3..the d3s too i think..

[myjohnson]

Thai I just remembered something we all seem to have overlooked. The Nikons do not have full frame sensors which means they all have a magnification factor. The D90 has a 1.5 magnification factor which makes the effective range of a 105mm = 157mm. So ANY lens you chose will actually give you a natural telephoto effect. I know you have made your choice already but I had forgotten to mention that.

Thanks Gene, I read about this already. I been researching on Nikoncafe like white on rice.

p.s. You still owe me pictures of the RRs sir. )

[ddaquaria]

Donald,
I always looked at this an advantage. It helped me greatly with sports shooting by increasing the focal length of 300mm 2.8 to a 450mm. I would think it would be an advantage with fish as well when trying to capture details like teeth and scales. I will have to defer to you on fish photography as most of my experience is with sports and journalism and a little art photography.

My comment only regarded your first statement - "The Nikons do not have full frame sensors which means they all have a magnification factor.". My comment was not against the train of thought that you had, since I do see it as an advantage. I mainly wanted to add that all the posters were commenting based on their camera and lens, and you'll notice that the 50 and 60 were tossed around a lot. The 50 on a Canon is an 80 with crop factor (a lot of users here seem to have Rebels), and 75 on a Nikon with crop factor. I also shoot sports, and really like the fact that my 200 "becomes" a 300, and for this reason I don't see myself going full-frame in the future unless it has both modes.

[cameracorpus]

Unless your fish are huge, it will help. I find a 50mm with the multiplication factor is about as wide a lens as I'd want to go for fish, although I admit up front I'm a newbie with fish also. That equates to 80mm on full frame/film camera since Canon's MF is 1.6x for most of their bodies.

But I find that after using digital for years now, trying to translate the lenses has gotten to be a PITA. I guess for us folks that got our mind-sets with 35mm it will always be a consideration, but for folks cutting their teeth with digital, 17mm has become the standard wide angle, 35 or 40mm the "normal", etc. Only my wedding photog buddies have felt that they must go to full frame digital. Everyone else I know has felt that unless they need specific features of the pro camera bodies (mainly higher burst rate), they can handle the multiplication factor. In fact, one sports guy I know is bummed because he had to get a pro body for the burst speed but lost the multiplication factor.

One factor that I think we're leaving out, though, is tank lighting. Are we all assuming that the tanks have minimum 2wpg or so? I know that my 55g does, and flash is an option. But with my other tanks and other local folks' tanks that have 1wpg or less, I much prefer diffused flash over trying to get a good shot with a slow shutter speed or maxed out ISO. From what I've seen so far this may not be an issue, but it is something to consider.

[Gene D]

This is not true for all Nikons. The full frame sensor starts with the D700 model and higher. For majority of the shooters on this site that have a DSLR, none of us have full frame sensors. Even the Canon Shooters would need a 5D (mark II) or higher to accomplish full frame.

Donald,
I always looked at this an advantage. It helped me greatly with sports shooting by increasing the focal length of 300mm 2.8 to a 450mm. I would think it would be an advantage with fish as well when trying to capture details like teeth and scales. I will have to defer to you on fish photography as most of my experience is with sports and journalism and a little art photography.

[ddaquaria]

The Nikons do not have full frame sensors which means they all have a magnification factor.

This is not true for all Nikons. The full frame sensor starts with the D700 model and higher. For majority of the shooters on this site that have a DSLR, none of us have full frame sensors. Even the Canon Shooters would need a 5D (mark II) or higher to accomplish full frame.

[Gene D]

Thai I just remembered something we all seem to have overlooked. The Nikons do not have full frame sensors which means they all have a magnification factor. The D90 has a 1.5 magnification factor which makes the effective range of a 105mm = 157mm. So ANY lens you chose will actually give you a natural telephoto effect. I know you have made your choice already but I had forgotten to mention that.

[madugo]

it would be more value when just in case you want to resell it..and the VR will prove its price one of the days...lol..its like most of the time you may not need it...but when you need it..if it is not there...you will get pissed...
i lilke my 100mm marco very much...but i would be if it has IS...
but thats just talking...i just have to use what i got...because their new 100mm macro is super expensive...
and one more thing tho..do you care about the weight of the lens?
because in most case..2 same lens, one with IS one dont...the IS one is gonna be heavier...

[ddaquaria]

truth me...with a good flash and the right setting, even the tank is completely dark...you can still take a good and bright pic..it is just the matter if you can focus right...in dark environments, AF does not work that great...a lot of times it is just better to manually focus with your hand...

imo flash is one of the best investments...and they cost around 500 for a reason..
i still recommended you get the VR tho...because it is newer...they replaced the old one for a reason....

+1

VR/IS stabilizes images from the jiggly effects of hand-holding. It helps replace a tripod for making sharp photos. IS and VR let me shoot in bad light and forget a tripod, except for the most formal night shots.

IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids. [and fish]

To reduce the effects of subject motion you still need to use faster lenses, more light, or a higher ISO.
- excerpt from http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm I take his opinion with a grain of salt, but when looking for a quick definition - he usually explained things pretty well.

If I remember correctly, the 105 VR is optically better than the standard 105. The VR just adds another check in the advantage column for macro work. The 60 that I use is a D version whereas the new one is a G. I'm not sure if the lens quality is better, but is does focus faster with eh AFS system.

Here is my favorite lens evaluator:: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

[ddaquaria]

Seems like I'm about to pull the trigger again and get the nikon 105/2.8.

I'm wait on Donald and see what he says. He has both. He recommend I get the 105/2.8 but I'm reading on other forums that the 60/2.8 is good for fish taking pictures.

I prefer the 60, but when you stated you wanted to be 3 feet from the fish, I recommended the 105. Personally, I pull up a chair, make sure my flash is where I want it, and wait. Even the namansi reef chill out after a few minutes, and the fry come out a lot.

[ddaquaria]

What would be the pros and cons when comparing 60/2.8 vs. 105/2.8?

Distance from the subject.

[myjohnson]

Seems like I'm about to pull the trigger again and get the nikon 105/2.8.

I'm wait on Donald and see what he says. He has both. He recommend I get the 105/2.8 but I'm reading on other forums that the 60/2.8 is good for fish taking pictures.

[madugo]

mj

truth me...with a good flash and the right setting, even the tank is completely dark...you can still take a good and bright pic..it is just the matter if you can focus right...in dark environments, AF does not work that great...a lot of times it is just better to manually focus with your hand...
like the flash i got..i can go maybe F8 1/1000s and even at -2 exposure, the picture come out still really bright...and my tank is not bright at all...
imo flash is one of the best investments...and they cost around 500 for a reason..
i still recommended you get the VR tho...because it is newer...they replaced the old one for a reason....

[madugo]

I'm also looking at the nikon 60mm f/2.8 marco.

What would be the pros and cons when comparing 60/2.8 vs. 105/2.8?

I'm assuming canon lens are comparable, so what are the pros and cons between the 50/2.8 and 100/2.8?

as or macro...imo get the one with longer range...
50mm is best for portrait shooting....
not that good to be a macro range...
because sometimes you shooting macro, which most people are shooting insects, you can't go all the way to a bee or fly most of the time...
so people just find it more popular to using 100mm macro...
there are some new macro concepts out there now, which are using a 100mm macro lens, and one more 50mm or so, attach the 50mm backward to the front of the 100mm...you will get around 2-3 times magnify, instead of 1:1 like most of the 100mm does...which is pretty fun...i never tried it myself..my friend did...which with pretty impressive results. canon makes 50mm f1.8 which is reallly cheap...like you can get one less than 100 bucks..not sure about nikon...
oh and also...you might even want to invest into a pretty good tripod...its gonna help you a lot too...
a good tripod is not cheap at all..together with a good ball head it can cost up to a few thousand dollars...
but more than likely you wont get those super long ranges lens that are more like shooting birds...those are heavy..so you would need a really good tripod to hold it up...
but just daily use with a normal weight lens...one cost around 100 something would be enough...the brand i am using is pretty good..

[cameracorpus]

The biggest advantage of the aftermarkets, mainly Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina, is that they give Nikon and Canon competition and prices are therefore more competitive. I've never owned a Tamron, Tokina, or Sigma that I've kept, but the Tamron 180mm macro is supposed to be pretty darn decent.

A real advantage of buying the OEM lenses and other accessories is that the factories consider their previous products when making new bodies and other accessories. But they really don't care if the aftermarket stuff works on their new products. Sometimes this has made aftermarket stuff obsolete when it was still pretty young.

Since going to the EOS system, I've stayed loyal to the OEM products, and it has made a big difference. This applies to focus speed and other things you don't automatically think of as well.

Madugo is correct about testing the lenses and not assuming anything. I used to do a lot of testing of antique cameras and lenses, and still test my lenses periodically. I've never had a modern OEM lens out of spec, but I've heard that it does happen. Of course, if you send it in they will dial it in for you no sweat.

Accuracy of autofocus is probably the biggest issue right now. For instance, there may be a 6" range of perfect focus in a picture (depth of field). The autofocus should autofocus in the middle of the 6" range, but they seldom do. You have to do some basic tests to make sure your lens doesn't focus right on the edge of that range when autofocus is used. All my L series Canon lenses have tested perfect, but the more economical ones have been a bit off. Not that they wouldnt' take a good picture, but there was a varience.