Hi, I am planning to buy a macro (mikro) lens for my D90. According to what I´ve read from wildlife photographers it is advisable to go for a more long focal. Independently of price, which are the best quality makro (from 150 to 200 mm) lenses so far?
Thanks so much, this forum is incredibly helpfull!
Hans
Currently, there really is not a bad macro lens out there from a major manufacturer (camera makers and Sigma, Tokina and Tamron). Manufacturere is not as much of a concern as it would be for other lenses.
If you plan to shoot active subjects such as insects or amphibians, a longer focal length is advisable. With shorter focals lengths, even with the cropped sensors, it is very easy to get within a range that scares your subject off. Getting a longer lens gives you more space to work with.
Additionally, a longer focal length allows for tighter control of the background. You get less of it spread over the same sensor/film so things are a lot more blurred.
I'd look at a 90-105mm at a minimum for a focal length. If your budget allows for it, a 180-200mm lens.
For manufacturer, I'd try to stay with the Nikon, simply for long term compatibility. It is probably also just a shade sharper, but you are talking about fine shades of excellent rather than excellent and good.
If you look at a third party lens, Sigma is probably the best choice of the three. Also, Sigma makes a 150 mm macro which from what I have seen appears to be sharper than the Canon 180. Keep in mind that I have a small altar devoted to the worship of the Canon 180, which I use religiously .
Assuming that it will be used for nature photography, a 50 mm macro is simply the wrong choice for most work. You will be too close, scaring off your subjects and casting a shadow over the few things you haven't chased off. They are great lenses but not for nature field work.
I have the Nikkor 200mm f/4D lens and it is a beauty. They are not easy to come buy but the image quality is very good.
However, I use the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D for most of my macro field work and have many shots of flies, bees, dragonflies, shield bugs, butterflies, moths, spiders, etc. While the 60mm is more of a challenge as far as the subjects are concerned, lighting (with a softbox) is much easier because everything is closer.
Charlie wrote: "See if you can find one of the older Nikon 70-180mm zoom macro lenses. It is an excellent choice IMO."
I found one and bought it several months ago. It is amazing.
Only 2-3 oz heavier than the Tamron and Sigma 180 macros. Focus does not change when you zoom. Effective aperture doesn't change when you focus really close. Put a Raynox diopter (multi-element, coated) on it, and you can go closer than 1:1 and not notice any degradation in IQ. It is heavy, but it can be handheld (here is a handheld shot with a Raynox +8D on it). Read Ken Rockwell's and Thom Hogan's reviews.
I use the Sigma 150mm 2.8 and for the most part, the images I get are as sharp as it gets. I particularly like the working distance, the ability to really separate the subject from its background/foreground with focus, and the HSM motor and focus limiter which makes it easy to hand hold it for close insect shots. The bokeh could be a little smoother. Depending on the "busy-ness" of the background, it can be slightly distracting. I have also used it for sports photography (lacrosse games) and found it to focus cleanly and accurately.
While its true that lenses are optimized for certain working distances, and manufacturers play games with focal length, shortening it a bit in order to be able to focus to 1:1, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. I think I remember reading somewhere that the actual focal length at 1:1 is somewhere around 120mm, which is still fine for what I use it for. Have not tried the other Sigmas, but I have used the 200 F4 Nikor and found it to be pretty darn good as well. But for my needs and a little more than half the cost, I felt that there was very little compromise in getting the Sigma 150.
Posted by Richard Ditch on June 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM
manufacturers play games with focal length, shortening it a bit in order to be able to focus to 1:1
They are not "playing games;" this occurs from internal focusing, where the elements at the rear of the lens are shifted forward to change the point of focus. This keeps the physical length of the lens constant, rather than having the entire lens assembly pushed far forward. This makes the lens barrel a lot more compact by eliminating the need to crank the heavy lens barrel way out. All Internal Focus lenses do this, but it is only with the macro lenses that you get a big c
In nearly 40 years of photography I've owned many of the Micro Nikkor lenses: the 55/3.5, the 55/2.8; 105/2.8 MF; 105/2.8 AF (bought used to work on the D70 and still in my kit); the 200/4 MF (bought new around 1983 and still in use on my D200). Every one of these delivered excellent performance. I'd enjoy the new 60 and 105 AF-S versions or the old 70-180 but have no need to change from the 105 and 200 I now have.
Actually, the point of focus doesn't change in an internally focused lens, but rather the location of the rear node. In a simple design, the entire lens is moved forward, including its rear node, in order to enable it to focus on the film/sensor plane. An easy way to gain magnification in a lens is to mount it on a bellows or extension tube to increase the distance between its rear node and the focal point. The problem is that lenses are optimized for particular working distances. Normal or telephoto/zoom lenses are optimized for infinity focus - which is where the lens designers have all three colors focusing on the same plane. Macro lenses are optimized for all three colors to focus when the lens's rear node is as far away from the film/sensor plane as necessary to create an image size that is equal to the subject size (1:1).
There are several ways to move internal elements of lenses to effectively relocate the rear node, and as with everything, there are tradeoffs. What I meant by "playing around" is that the internal focusing mechanism of the Nikor lens uses a method that preserves as much working distance (effective focal length) as possible relative to its advertised focal length, whereas the third party vendors do it a little differently where you lose relatively more working distance.
The really great thing about internal focusing is that there is relatively little (one F stop or less) light loss when focused at 1:1, where it could be as much as 2-3 stops (depending on focal length) if you were using a simpler (extending lens) design or extension tube/bellows to move that rear node forward.
I've used a 200/4 "micro" Nikkor since my film days. It is my most used lens and has really taken a beating over the years. When I do everything right, it is plenty sharp. I think I could get away with a shorter focal length macro considering the crop factor of my D200. I would really miss the tripod collar though.
Discussion
8 repliesThanks so much, this forum is incredibly helpfull!
Hans
If you plan to shoot active subjects such as insects or amphibians, a longer focal length is advisable. With shorter focals lengths, even with the cropped sensors, it is very easy to get within a range that scares your subject off. Getting a longer lens gives you more space to work with.
Additionally, a longer focal length allows for tighter control of the background. You get less of it spread over the same sensor/film so things are a lot more blurred.
I'd look at a 90-105mm at a minimum for a focal length. If your budget allows for it, a 180-200mm lens.
For manufacturer, I'd try to stay with the Nikon, simply for long term compatibility. It is probably also just a shade sharper, but you are talking about fine shades of excellent rather than excellent and good.
If you look at a third party lens, Sigma is probably the best choice of the three. Also, Sigma makes a 150 mm macro which from what I have seen appears to be sharper than the Canon 180. Keep in mind that I have a small altar devoted to the worship of the Canon 180, which I use religiously
Assuming that it will be used for nature photography, a 50 mm macro is simply the wrong choice for most work. You will be too close, scaring off your subjects and casting a shadow over the few things you haven't chased off. They are great lenses but not for nature field work.
However, I use the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D for most of my macro field work and have many shots of flies, bees, dragonflies, shield bugs, butterflies, moths, spiders, etc. While the 60mm is more of a challenge as far as the subjects are concerned, lighting (with a softbox) is much easier because everything is closer.
Here are some examples:
Spiders
Insects
I found one and bought it several months ago. It is amazing.
Only 2-3 oz heavier than the Tamron and Sigma 180 macros. Focus does not change when you zoom. Effective aperture doesn't change when you focus really close. Put a Raynox diopter (multi-element, coated) on it, and you can go closer than 1:1 and not notice any degradation in IQ. It is heavy, but it can be handheld (here is a handheld shot with a Raynox +8D on it). Read Ken Rockwell's and Thom Hogan's reviews.
While its true that lenses are optimized for certain working distances, and manufacturers play games with focal length, shortening it a bit in order to be able to focus to 1:1, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue. I think I remember reading somewhere that the actual focal length at 1:1 is somewhere around 120mm, which is still fine for what I use it for. Have not tried the other Sigmas, but I have used the 200 F4 Nikor and found it to be pretty darn good as well. But for my needs and a little more than half the cost, I felt that there was very little compromise in getting the Sigma 150.
They are not "playing games;" this occurs from internal focusing, where the elements at the rear of the lens are shifted forward to change the point of focus. This keeps the physical length of the lens constant, rather than having the entire lens assembly pushed far forward. This makes the lens barrel a lot more compact by eliminating the need to crank the heavy lens barrel way out. All Internal Focus lenses do this, but it is only with the macro lenses that you get a big c
In nearly 40 years of photography I've owned many of the Micro Nikkor lenses: the 55/3.5, the 55/2.8; 105/2.8 MF; 105/2.8 AF (bought used to work on the D70 and still in my kit); the 200/4 MF (bought new around 1983 and still in use on my D200). Every one of these delivered excellent performance. I'd enjoy the new 60 and 105 AF-S versions or the old 70-180 but have no need to change from the 105 and 200 I now have.
There are several ways to move internal elements of lenses to effectively relocate the rear node, and as with everything, there are tradeoffs. What I meant by "playing around" is that the internal focusing mechanism of the Nikor lens uses a method that preserves as much working distance (effective focal length) as possible relative to its advertised focal length, whereas the third party vendors do it a little differently where you lose relatively more working distance.
The really great thing about internal focusing is that there is relatively little (one F stop or less) light loss when focused at 1:1, where it could be as much as 2-3 stops (depending on focal length) if you were using a simpler (extending lens) design or extension tube/bellows to move that rear node forward.
Pete D.