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