4 replies to this topic

[SanderJas]

I’m new to Nikon Forums.  I have a Nikon D800E camera.  I’m kind of  self taught myself what I know about photography, but I have less than 100% of the goods it takes to be one, but I try and get on and I love finding images or compositions, even though they don’t always add up like that in a photo.  But I do get some pictures I like.  The last few years I’ve tried macro of wild flowers and insects.  I have a Sigma 105 AF macro.  It’s a great lens.  I also bought extension tubes for digital Nikon auto focus: 12mm,20mm,36mm.  I have sometimes used these with bugs.  Seems like less depth.  I have taken many macro pictures and it is hard, but I’ve gotten some pictures and learned more by this experience.  Although does everyone or anyone know what to set the exact aperture for a picture when they see it?  Do the pros know this?   I do in some instances, but not much of the time.  I would know more the area to set, not always the exact aperture.  I sometimes bracket.  Or depth of field preview.  And especially for macro.  And there is not much time to do this for bugs. But I’m getting off the track.  Could anyone weigh the pros and cons of my 105 macro against adding tubes or teleconverter (strength?) or a new 200 telephoto macro lens (probably Nikon)?  I think with the new lens you could stand farther back from insects to get macros, but is that all?  There would be less depth and would my 105 still resolve with better crispness than the new telephoto because the new lens would be around 200mm as opposed to 105?  Would tubes do the same thing as a telephoto macro?  Or a teleconverter?  I’m less excited about teleconverters because they put more glass between you and the subject matter than a bare lens or a lens with tubes.

 

 As for what I want out of it.  It would be nice to stand farther away from skittish bees and butterflies (although I can get pretty close to standard bugs, but bees and butterflies move off.)  But some standard bugs do tense when you are near and that would help with that.  I think I could get more bug head shots with a telephoto macro.  But I don’t think I would want to spend all my time getting head horror shots!  I would like some.  I would like to get closer pictures of butterflies.  Although my D800E camera with the full frame FX format, you can zoom in on a picture to crop some and still have a quality image.  Still by the time I see some 105 shots at greater distances of butterflies, the picture is degraded some because I will have to zoom in too much.  This new lens would be a chunk of money.  I don’t want to make a mistake and wish I had not spent the money.  They give you two weeks at the camera store I physically go to, to bring back the lens after you have bought it.  It’s more like two years for me to really make that decision unless something is real apparent.  I got quality pictures with the 105.  I don’t want the quality to decline much because I’m at 200mm.  But one intelligent camera store  person said quality of a macro telephoto lens doesn’t decline at all from a 105 macro.  Any information or opinions on this?  Anyone into macro photography and has experience with 105 macro as opposed to a 200 telephoto macro or tubes or teleconverters?  Is there another size of macro telephoto?  Thank you very much for any information or experience in this.

 

Thank You,

 

Sandy

[Merco_61]

The DOF is dependent on the magnification ratio and aperture. It doesn't matter if you use a diopter or extension to get that magnification. At 1:1, the DOF will be the same whether you use a 55, 105 or 200 mm macro, the relationship between things in the frame will differ, though, as perspective is a product of the distance from the subject.

 

A TC will give you more working distance as you increase the focal length, you will get a lower maximum magnification, though, as the extension doesn't scale up. To get a 105 mm lens to 1:1 takes an extension of 105 mm compared to focus at infinity. With a 2x TC, you now have 210 mm focal length, but the extension is still 105 mm, so you only get to 1:2. The real problem is that you have the extension inside the lens system now, which will give massive CA. In short, a TC for macro use is not a good idea. Things get even wackier with IF lenses...

 

A longer focal length will give you more working distance at a given magnification.

 

The MicroNikkor 200/4 is a nice lens and was the best long macro by far in 1993 when it was introduced. Today, the Sigma 180/2.8 produces better photos as it is fully apochromatic. The Nikkor can show some CA in some lighting situations. The Sigma "is" heavier, though.

 

Setting the correct aperture for the look you want comes with practise. It is a good exercise to get objects that are approximately the size of the insects you want to shoot and set up some shots in a controlled environment with some textured backdrops that you can set at different distances behind your objects to get a feel for how blurry OOF things get.

[SanderJas]

Thank You for the information and the testing set up is a great idea!  You say the Sigma/2.8 produces better photos as is is fully apochromatic.  Chromatic & spherical aberrations?  Yes, but what about comparison of the glass used in both lens?  Better quality glass is better quality image...?  And you are saying because the Sigma has fully less chromatic aberation, it is the better quality? What kind of difference are we talking about.  I don't want to give up a finer glass that Nikon might have for some CA in some lighting conditions.  A few conditions or more than a few?   I really don't know.  Is there any other difference in the glass between Sigma and Nikon? I have heard Nikon has the best glass?  I like my Nikon Lens photos.   I really don't know unless a side by side comparison of lens (and this would only be in one situation for one to a few shots)?   And then it would be probably personal taste, or definitely you think the Sigma would have a bit better resolving or focus in most situations than the Nikon when it was not showing CA?   Does the Nikon lens do CA worse in some situations than the Sigma, but through finer glass?  So the Nikon lens would do finer looking images most of the time unless under some lighting situations there would be less focus?   The Sigma is a 2.8 as compared to the Nikon 4?Thank You for the DOF, information a lot, I don't know my way around in that or much of this!  I just know what I see, I'm way less good in the technical side of why.  Thank You because with this purchase I'm needing more information and there are few people I can talk to that really know their way around this.  I just want to get the very best quality picture I can.  I don't blame you if you just tell me to compare.  I did this with my Nikon Fisheye comparing it to other companies and could really see the better quality of the Nikon lens.

 

Thank You for any more information,

Thank You,

 

Sandy

[Merco_61]

The problem with a lens that doesn't project the full spectrum in the same plane is that it will give lots of CA artifacts wherever you have something narrow and dark against something light, like the details on a damselfly or dragonfly against the sky or a white flower. Correcting CA in post is much more difficult when shooting macros as the small loss of detail hat goes with the CA removal is so noticeable.

 

The 180 macro is one of the two Sigmas I would choose over the Nikon counterpart, the other is the 150-600 Sports. Most of the Sigmas are overcorrected in my opinion and so perfect in their rendition that they are a bit boring. The macro really sings in that the subject is sharp, the transition is gradual and the background soft and creamy.

 

I have shot a bit with different rented and borrowed samples of the Sigma, but I haven't bought one as I don't have that much use for a long macro.

 

If you decide to rent to see for yourself, include a cactus and a saintpaulia against the light if you can as that will show the difference between the lenses well and is clearly applicable for insects, but in a controlled environment where you can compare the lenses in very similar conditions.

[SanderJas]

Thank You so much for the help and information.  I really needed someone in the know for this question.  I'm glad I joined this board.  I have two more long standing questions which will help me in how I treat my future equipment strategy.  Just can't find definitive answers, but sometimes photography equipment is not so definitive I guess.   I'll have to ask them at a later date.  Thank You So much for the help again.

 

Thank You,

 

Sandy