PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[John Forrest]

Carole's son is obviously doing a splendid job at Blackpool and the Fylde College. I Went to have a look at some of the student's work a little while ago and they were superb.

[Paddy Tobin]

Perhaps Carole's son may be back home for the Easter break and might advise. Of course, other forum members might be in a position to advise also but I note that Carole's son uses a Nikon D200 as I do and might be in a better position to advise.

At present I use a Nikon 18 - 200mm lens but am considering purchasing another lens for micro work. Any suggestions?

Paddy

[Carlo]

No question Paddy...for macro work with a Nikon, get the 105 Micro Nikkor 1:2.8. It's a great lens and allows enough working distance for comfort yet goes down to 1 to 1.

[TC]

Perhaps Carole's son may be back home for the Easter break and might advise. Of course, other forum members might be in a position to advise also but I note that Carole's son uses a Nikon D200 as I do and might be in a better position to advise.

At present I use a Nikon 18 - 200mm lens but am considering purchasing another lens for micro work. Any suggestions?

Paddy

Your choice is really between  Nikon VR 105 2.8 MACRO.  The latest version has vibration reduction which is a great help in handheld shots and must be the premium lens for macro work.  The average price is about £500.
The other two are the Sigma EX DG 105 2.8   and the Tamron SP SP Di 90 Macro.  Both of these are about the £270 mark.
Remember that these lenses mounted on digital cameras have a focal length of 150mm for the 105mm and 135mm for the 90mm.

I have been using a Tamron 105mm for 11 years and I am perfectly happy with the results..

I think that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between pictures taken with any of these lenses.  The Nikon offers more with vibration reduction but is almost twice the price !

As usual, it comes down to what you fancy and how much you are willing to pay.

[Paddy Tobin]

Carlo and Tom,

Many thanks for your replies; great to have unbiased advice. As I said above I am presently using an 18 - 200mm Nikkor VR lens and this allows me, at full zoom, to work at about 30 cm from the subject but at full zoom camera shake can be a problem especially as I have shaky hands at the best of times(the drugs to that!).  A lens with a 2.8 aperture would allow greater speeds and help alleviate this difficulty. Using a tripod in the garden is not always the easiest.

I'll look into prices of those you mentioned above. For preference I would choose the Nikon but it is good to have others for comparison purposes and as an alternative when cost considerations come into it.

Many thanks, Paddy

[John Forrest]

Paddy, why don't you see if there is a local photographic club in your area. I did and found the members eager to help and found one with the same make of camera (Nikon) to let me try his lenses before I took the plunge. I found the 50mm 1: 2.8 Macro Sigma was excellent quality at a fraction of the price.This is for close work down to 1:1 but I can see that a longer one would be useful for getting to flowers in the middle of a herbaceous border. I can't hold my camera steady anymore either but always use a tripod (Manfrotto with a BALL head for quick and easy changes in angle, with one hand and has a quick release to detach the camera) also the legs have 3 adjustments for changing the angle to get really low down. When you use it often it becomes much less of a chore. You mention f2.8 but don't forget at close quarters you have almost no depth of field. I have bought second hand off ebay several times and got lenses at a much less tearful price without any problems.

[mark smyth]

7dayshop.com stock the Sigma lens
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=1&type=1380&man=130&filterwords=Sigma+EX+DG+105+2.8&go=SEARCH&comp=

[Paddy Tobin]

John,

I was returning to this topic to add a further query and find that you have touched on it already.

What is the difference between a 50mm and a 105mm AF Macro? The 50mm is certainly much cheaper, half the price approximately.

From your comments, John, it seems that the 50mm is fine for shots close up to the subject and that the 105mm allows one to take close-up shots of subjects a little distant. However, I already have an 18 - 200mm which would cover this. Is this correct?

John, I looked at the Manfrotto tridop you described - state of the art, indeed! I passed on it as I thought I wouldn't get the use out of it to justify the price and settled for one within my pocket's means. They are excellent but very expensive.

Mark, I'll follow up on your link now. Many thanks. By the way, any thoughts on the snowdrops I posted last evening.

Paddy

[TC]

The basic difference between 50mm and 105mm is the distance from the lens to the subject to get the same size picture.
To get full 1:1 magnification  (life size) of an individual saxifrage flower, the front of the lens needs to be about 4" to 6" away.  With digital sensors giving 1.5 magnification this is effectively 6"/9".  This is often too close to manage without putting your subject in the shade of your equipment. A larger focal length allows you to move further back for the same size picture.  The shorter focal lenghts are probably better suited to indoor set-ups such as stamps, coins etc. I have a Nikon 60mm. macro lens which I have used in photographing orchids in Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus.  After struggling with this set-up I tried my Tamron 90mm SP with much more success as I could move further back from the subject, and it took me about a quarter of the time to take the pictures.  I did not see any difference in quality between the two lenses.

[Heather Smith]

To Carole's son
I went to the same Photo school in Blackpool (at least I think it's the same one) in the late 60s.  It was an excellent school (not connected to an art college) which gave a good grounding in photography esp technical photography, rather than arty stuff.  I would be interested to hear how it has changed - no digital in my days there, of course.

[Paddy Tobin]

Tom,

Many thanks for such a clear and precise explanation as well as the practical implications. I have a far better undersanding now of what I need and of what is available.

Paddy

[mark smyth]

Here's a fantastic bargain or all those thinking of upgrading from very basic point and shoots. 7 Day Shop have the latest 12 mega pixel Canon with swivel screen and x6 zoom for £126 less than RRP. If you order before the end of the month there is a further £50 off as cash back
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=102911&r=20080319

[David Lyttle]

Paddy,

I am presently using two lenses with my Nikon D300 an 18-200 VR lens which I presume is the same as yours and a  60 mm Nikon micro for close up work.  I am very satisfied with the 18-200 VR, the zoom facility is very handy for framing shots and you can take photos on the fly without having to stop and fiddle around with a fixed focal length and tripods. I use the 60mm micro for close up shots of small alpine flowers - It means you have to get down on your hands and kneees and grovel about in bogs etc

In honour of the year of the potato and my Irish antecedents here is a hand -held photo taken with the 18-200 zoom

and Phyllachne rubra taken with the 60 mm micro and tripod, so my suggestion would be to continue using your existing 18-200mm zoom for most things - it is really pretty good and get a 60 mm micro for closeup work. It is considerably cheaper than the 105 micro and offers the same 1:1 magnification.

[Paul Cumbleton]

Just to add my experience with macro lenses. The close-pictures of the hepaticas on the last Wisley Log were taken with the Sigma EX DG 105 2.8 (mounted on my new Olympus E3), which Tom mentioned previously. The results speak for themselves, it produces fantastic images. Because of the long focal length you can take close-ups from quite a long working distance from the subject.

It is however a large lens which adds to the weight of your camera and if you want to take pictures at f22 to get the best depth of field you really do need a tripod. I also still use my old olympus 50mm macro, which is considerably smaller and lighter and still gives a reasonable working distance from the subject. I would consider a smaller focal length lens like the 50mm a better bet for "everyday" general macro shots. But if you have the time to spend on getting the very best shots and want a good working distance then the longer focal lengths are a good choice. I can certainly recommend the Sigma without hesitation.

Paul

[Ian Y]

I use an olympus 35mm Zuiko macro lens on my  E330 - it is not big and very light and I get great results and not that expensive at around £130.
35mm in digital is equivalent to a 70mm in old camera terms.
It is the lens I am using most around the garden as it works for most shots.
Paul when you say you are using your old 50mm macro lens have you an adapter to convert it to your E3?