Thread: No response OK I will try another way.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

The problem with the 85mm is that you have to get very close to the subject.
One of the best value for money and quality are the Sigma 150 and the 180mm macros.
The new Nikon VR macros are very nice and you can have one on the 100mm range.
I use a diopter in my Nikon 70-300VR but the DOF is very shallow about 6mm.
This native bee is only 4 mm long and to get the full body I have to take a side view.

Getting close to your subject is what Macro is all about.

I was 10cm away from the fly in the shot I posted above.

You just need to improve your stalking skills.

Originally Posted by s7000

Getting close to your subject is what Macro is all about.

I was 10cm away from the fly in the shot I posted above.

You just need to improve your stalking skills.

Well getting close to a fly or a Saunders' Case Moths, Large Bagworm
Metura elongatus (Oiketicus elongatus) it is easy enough but getting close to an Orange potter wasp is different proposition

I've used a 105/2.8 macro Sigma on my old film camera.Nikon F100. Very good lense for the price. At the time it beat the eqivilant Nikon model in some areas. Also a great portrait lense. Would go for anything shorter than 105. Check specs/test/prices on Sigma/Tamron Vs Nikon. In the 105-180 / F2-2.8 range macro lenses. I think the Sigma lense is excellent value for money.

Now have Nikon D300 & use Nikon 18-200 98% of the time. Have yet to try Sigma on D300. YET. That would make it an ~ 157 lense.

Gary

Thanks guys, I am now thinking I should stay with what I have got and put up with the weight factor.

Tony

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Well getting close to a fly or a Saunders' Case Moths, Large Bagworm
Metura elongatus (Oiketicus elongatus) it is easy enough but getting close to an Orange potter wasp is different proposition

MPE and around 10cm away again...And still easy.



Obviously caution is needed, but it all comes down to your stalk.

I don't think anyone has really answered your question, and I'm certainly no expert but.
I have a Nikon 105D f2.8 macro and its an excellent general purpose lens that will focus down to a 1:1 image. To my limited knowledge the same applies to all the better macro lens I've read about. They are all very good general purpose fixed focal length lenses that take excellent general purpose photos. The only drawback I'm aware of is they all have a smaller aperture than their non macro counterparts.
I personally normally don't use my macro for general photography as I prefer the flexibility of the 18 - 200 mm zoom, or the low light capabilities of the 50 mm f1.4G

This is not a direct answer to your question, but have you thought about using extension tubes? They are soooo much cheaper and from what I can see do just as good a job - provided your normal lense that you are using is quality glass.

This is what I am going to do as I couldnt decide what lense to get then thought 'if I get extension tubes I can vary the size and the distance'

Tubes are cheap and can be fitted together to make the macro/micro larger or smaller

Thats my two bobs worth, without actually answering your question

Blythe

Continuing along the lines of not answering your question.
A friend of mine takes absolutely outstanding macro shots of bugs, ants gnats and things in his home garden using a very early model digital camera. From memory it's an old sony cybershot of about 2-3 Mpixel. By todays standards its a throw away.
For reasons I don't understand its very small CCD is a bonus for macro photography as it gives very good depth of field. Someone else may be able to explain why. His results are very good. This may be a viable alternative to buying a new lens for macro work?

Deano