Micro lens for d700...


bethpapa74

New Member
Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#1
hi bro,
have you got any advises for Micro lenses on d700?

what do you think of Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED IF AF-S VR Micro
:embrass::embrass:
 

elixied

New Member
Aug 4, 2010
36
0
0
#2
[video=youtube;28BUkYcub7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28BUkYcub7g&playnext=1&list=PL65DBD67FA26B45AD[/video]

There ya go :)
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#3
Bro, you got ur D700 already ah?
Nice.

BTW, the 105mm Micro VR is a great lens for handheld. It's heavy though, but the results from it is stunning.
The other better options will be the 180mm from Sigma and Tamron & the legendary 200mm F4 AF-D lens.

A cheaper alternative is Tamron 90mm AF (various versions)
 

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#4
The 105 VR is an awesome lens, but there are alot other options

The more popular ones:
Nikon 105 2.8 non-VR, if you dont need VR, AF-S & Nano coating
Tamron 90mm 2.8, if you dont mind slower focusing and noisier AF, but at a longer price

There are also the, Sigma 105 2.8, Tokina 100 2.8

If you do not mind manual focus, do check out, the Kiron 105mm 2.8, Lester Dine 105mm 2.8, Vivitar Series 1 105mm 2.5, Vivitar 100mm 2.8.
They are the same lens, made by Kiron, and are really awesome!

If you need more focal length,
consider the Sigma & Tamron 180mm, and Nikon 200mm

or a shorter focal length,
Nikon 60mm 2.8 AF-D/AF-S
Nikon 55mm 2.8 or 3.5, (Manual focus though) and only 1:2.
 

bethpapa74

New Member
Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#5
Bro, you got ur D700 already ah?
Nice.

BTW, the 105mm Micro VR is a great lens for handheld. It's heavy though, but the results from it is stunning.
The other better options will be the 180mm from Sigma and Tamron & the legendary 200mm F4 AF-D lens.

A cheaper alternative is Tamron 90mm AF (various versions)
yo bro,
yes got it from John3:16 ... actually got a slightly better deal from Parisilk but too far and i wear Bermudas, not allowed to go HV right? haha.. joking :p

also got the 50mm f1.4G ... very nice bokeh, like it alot.

wanted to get the 24-70 f2.8 2nd hand but seller wans 2.3k no warranty .. in the end also buy from John3:16 around $2550 (better still).
 

bethpapa74

New Member
Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#6
The 105 VR is an awesome lens, but there are alot other options

The more popular ones:
Nikon 105 2.8 non-VR, if you dont need VR, AF-S & Nano coating
Tamron 90mm 2.8, if you dont mind slower focusing and noisier AF, but at a longer price

There are also the, Sigma 105 2.8, Tokina 100 2.8

If you do not mind manual focus, do check out, the Kiron 105mm 2.8, Lester Dine 105mm 2.8, Vivitar Series 1 105mm 2.5, Vivitar 100mm 2.8.
They are the same lens, made by Kiron, and are really awesome!

If you need more focal length,
consider the Sigma & Tamron 180mm, and Nikon 200mm

or a shorter focal length,
Nikon 60mm 2.8 AF-D/AF-S
Nikon 55mm 2.8 or 3.5, (Manual focus though) and only 1:2.
there are so many different FL available ... which are the more 'comfortable' ones?
do we really need f2.8 for macro?
 

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#7
there are so many different FL available ... which are the more 'comfortable' ones?
do we really need f2.8 for macro?
it depends on what you are comfortable with, and what you are shooting.
I've the Nikon 55mm 2.8 and the Vivitar Series 1 105mm 2.5

I normally use the 55mm for product shoots at home, where I've limited space, and dont need a longer focal length anyway
and use the 105mm for flower macros outdoors

You might want to consider getting a macro focusing rail as well, as i believe it would help alot when you are shooting with a tripod.
Personally, i find AF on macro is rather not needed, as most of the time you'll be MF-ing as the magnification gets larger.
As for 2.8, you will hardly use such large aperture when shooting macro, and you would need more dof as u get closer, but well, most of the macro lenses are made 2.8 =x
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#8
there are so many different FL available ... which are the more 'comfortable' ones?
do we really need f2.8 for macro?
First of all, what are you shooting bro?

If it's insect macro, F/2.8 is way too thin a depth of field for u to see anything. Normally shot betw. F/11 to F/16
If it's flower, you can do with F/4 to F/8, can also use F/2.8 for creative blur out showing portions of a flower.

Longer focal length usually has longer the minimum focus distance (to be confirmed). At minimum focus distance, it's also the point when u achieve 1:1 magnification. Hence for any macro lens that does 1:1, the longer the min focus distance, the better for you to work with in case u scare away those poor bugs with your huge guns.

As for comfort, well, it's a bit subjective. I know ppl who likes to work with 60mm macro, 50mm F/1.8 with raynox, 90mm or 105mm macro like myself and those with big guns like 180mm or 200mm macro lens. Each has it's own advantage and disadvantage.

I suggest u should rent out a lens to try. Go out with a group that shoots macro regularly and "steal" some skills as how to do so.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,644
63
48
lil red dot
#9
Depends on what kind of working distance and magnification you are looking for.

For FX the 200/4 works well. You may need extension tubes to get even more magnification. Most macro shooters opt for DX bodies actually, to get more resolution and better reach.

And you need to get some lighting to shoot macro, since shooting macro will make the dof very thin. Most people actually stop down a lot to get as much dof as possible. Some even resort to focus stacking. So consider a couple of flashes, off camera best. Ring flash or consider the Nikon r1c1 setup.

Good luck.
 

Last edited:

NikF601

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,541
0
36
52
CCK
#10
yo bro,
yes got it from John3:16 ... actually got a slightly better deal from Parisilk but too far and i wear Bermudas, not allowed to go HV right? haha.. joking :p

also got the 50mm f1.4G ... very nice bokeh, like it alot.

wanted to get the 24-70 f2.8 2nd hand but seller wans 2.3k no warranty .. in the end also buy from John3:16 around $2550 (better still).
well done, welcome to the micro world of micros .......
 

bethpapa74

New Member
Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#12
Thanks guys... been a lot of helps.
Where to rent lens? and approx how much it cost?
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#14
bethpapa74 said:
there are so many different FL available ... which are the more 'comfortable' ones?
do we really need f2.8 for macro?
I looked through a lot of lens before deciding on the Tokina 100mm f2.8 because of the build and the optics. I use it for portraiture and street as well so the f2.8 definitely comes in handy.

Hmm but it's tough to find a nikon mount one nowadays.
 

Guapo

New Member
Aug 1, 2007
78
0
0
#17
Dun want to open new thread and kenna fock for nothing.
So i just add here and ask since it's about marco.

I'm using a D3100.
For macro, do i need new lenses or macro filters ?

Thanks.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#18
Regardless which DX body you have, it's the same.

If you need 1:1 magnification, a dedicated macro lens is recommended. There are other ways to achieve the same thing such as Raynox and reverse mount adapter. I prefer a dedicated macro lens myself.

Just a side note, FX body has lesser focal length than DX body, which in this case, it's an advantageous for DX body.
 

spree86

Senior Member
Feb 3, 2009
4,774
0
0
Bishan
www.flickr.com
#19
Guapo said:
Dun want to open new thread and kenna fock for nothing.
So i just add here and ask since it's about marco.

I'm using a D3100.
For macro, do i need new lenses or macro filters ?

Thanks.
Depends on your budget and whether you are committed to shooting macro. If you only want to try it out, maybe macro filters or reverse macro would be a cheaper alternative
 

Top Bottom