Macro lens

[James Blonde]

I tend to think of myself as more of a landscape snapper than anything else, but some of my nicer photos seem to be of flowers, or FLOWERS in more manly speak.

I have a cheapie Sigma 70-300D F4-5.6DG, which has a "macro" feature between 200-300mm. This was my standard telephoto until I bought my Nikkor 70-300VR, which obviously doesn't have the "macro" feature, but I'm loathed to get rid of the Sigma because of it, although it doesn't give true 1:1. I don't want to be carrying 2 70-300mm lenses though.

I don't know if I want to explore true macro photography, but I do like the fact I can get closer with this lens than most others. If I did decide to upgrade, what would you suggest, and can I get close but not too close with a true macro lens?? Would decent quality extension tubes be a compromise worth considering, or would they be too restrictive?

I'm using a Nikon D90.

[silversnapper1]

I have the Nikon 60mm Macro lens but feel that I have to get too close to the subject for true 1:1 macro shots as the mfd is about 8/9 inches. I understand that the new 40mm Macro has an mfd of abou 6.5 inches but is a little shorter than the 60mm lens. What you have to remember that this is the distance between the focal plane of the camera and the subject not the end of the lens and the subject so you have to take the length of the lens plus a biot of the camera into account within this 8/9 inches. This means that the end of my 60mm gets to within about 2 inches of the subject. Great for detail in flowers but not good for insects that may be a bit skittish.

I don't always go for 1:1 with my flower shots but the 60mm is a nice sharp optic for such shots and if you want to see some examples, check out my website. There are quite a few on there, most of which have been taken with that lens.

If you are looking for such a lens I would suggest that you look at one of the longer focal lengths such as 105mm or 150mm, check the mfd and the length of the lens and then choose the lens that you want.

Hope that this helps.

[James Blonde]

Cheers Steve! Were the not-so-close pics like "Orange Rose" taken with the macro lens, or with something else?

[silversnapper1]

Just had a quick look at my gallery an thinking back, all of those images, including the bouquets were taken with the 60mm.

[Markulous]

My advice would be to get rid of the Sigma (albeit a pretty good lens which I've used a lot) which doesn't really do good macros. Have you a prime, something like a 50mm, on which you could try tubes (I suggest a prime as zooms don't always take to tubes too well!)? It's a very cheap (£50ish) way of getting into macro

I use Sigma 105 and 150, as well as Canon MPe 65 - and still use tubes every now and then!

[jet_kit]

Hi James,
Let's look at this from another angle.
You say that your macro work is a small part of your passion, so it's probably not wise to spend large sums of money on it unless your photography develops in that direction, or you've got loads of cash and it doesn't matter to you!
I would endorse previous postings on the dedicated prime macro lenses for the best results and have always found the longer focal lengths to be more practical. The Nikon 105mm Macro is fantastic. But this is a a pricey move.
Extension tubes come in two flavours; Manual and Auto. Manual tubes are cheap enough but your focus and aperture settings will not be auto. That may not seem too bad, but check first that can do this on your lenses! Auto tubes are expensive, even the Kenko's kick in at just under £100.
What you might consider is a reversing ring. These are pretty cheap and screw into the filter mount on the front of the lens and enable you to mount the lens onto the camera back to front. The disadvantages are that like manual tubes your aperture setting is manual, also there is no focusing at all. These work best on wide-angle prime lenses and have the effect of a macro-tele. I use one on a 24mm prime and it is like a 100mm macro, of course having no focus facility reduces it's flexibility, but the quality is superb. Again, we come back to the prime lens, I would not recommend trying this on a zoom lens.
Did you notice that I didn't once mention flowers? Much to manly for that, I'd be photographing car engine parts etc.

[littlebro]

Hi James, have you thought about a Canon 500d Close up Lens to fit to your Sigma using that with the Macro, the hover fly in my gallery was taken with that combination.

[James Blonde]

Thanks all! (been on holiday for a week). So basically the suggestion would be to go for a longer macro (105mm) rather than a shorter one?

I've got a 50mm F1.8 prime, so I guess that makes a useful option for tubes. I'm willing to pay a little more for the auto option, just to make life easier! However do I then have the same issues of having to get very close to the subject as per the 60mm Steve was mentioning?

Whats that you're talking about littlebro? and is it Canon specific, cos I'm on Nikon?