Dedicated macro or extension tubes?

I've been looking forward to purchasing the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro VR lens for macro work (frogs, dragonflies, flowers, etc.), though the price is a little steep (~ $850). I recently was shown the website of Ronnie Gaubert by an NPNer. His work is incredible, and he doesn't use a macro - just the Nikon 300 f/4 (which I have) and extension tubes. So, my question is should I spring for the dedicated macro lens, just buy the extension tubes, or both? B&H has 3 Kenko Auto Extension tubes (12, 20, 36) packaged together for only $165, so that would leave LOTS of money for say... a really nice tripod!

I'm still set on purchasing the macro lens because I want the VR capabilities, I currently only own the 300mm lens, so I want something smaller in general, I can pair it with my 1.7XTC and still have fully functioning AF and in past experiences I haven't had much of a problem getting nice and close to whatever macro subjects I'm photographing. Also, a macro lens is for shooting macro photography, so I have to believe that the sharpness/quality/detail is going to be superior with the macro lens.

My goal for macro work is to get amazing detail and get super upclose. In the past I mostly used a 55-200mm VR kit lens, and I was satisfied with it, but it came up quite short on detail. So, any and all suggestions are welcome. Though, I don't know if trying to convince me to purchase a sigma macro lens is worth the effort... I'm in love with the Nikon 105mm VR!

- Luke

I have the previous gen Nikkor 105mm Macro and it's my sharpest lens by far. Images produced with this lens look like other images that I've already applied a moderate unsharp mask to.

As for using the 300, you may get tubes for close focusing, but you're still going to have to be way back to compose most shots because of it's power, which will often defeat the purpose of the tubes. I couldn't imagine doing most of my macro work with a 300. Often I have to get right "into" a flower, not to fill the frame, but to get the right angle. A 300 is too strong for that.

Then there's the issue of needing a higher shutter speed on the 300. In all circumstances except for when the lens is tripod mounted with a completely stationary subject, you're going to need around 1/500th sec (unless you're shooting with a full frame sensor). You're going to need a whole lot of light in that case, and increasing film speed is never optimal.

Also, if you're going to add a lens mounted macro flash at any point, it doesn't work optimally with the distances you'll be shooting with the 300.

You might be able to pick up the last gen 105 for cheap. I know it doesn't have VR though. As for VR on a macro, I don't have a need for it. If I'm shooting any macro animal I ALWAYS use a macro flash; it just looks better, and if I'm shooting stationary flowers I'm using a tripod. I have Nikon's VR on my 80-400, and frankly it works like crap. But VR is intended for hand holding lenses, which I try never to do anyway.

I have a real fondness for true macro lenses. I've had at least two of the 55mm manual focus versions from Nikon, two of the 105/2.8 (one MF and one AF), and a 200/4 MF. Right now I have the 105/2.8 AF that I use for most close up needs, plus a 26 year old 200/4 MF that still works fine on the D200 but seldom gets used.

A real macro is nice because: you get continuous focusing from infinity tot he close limit of the lens (1:2 on the old 200, 1:1 on the 105 AF); it i a flat field lens. I don't see this feature mentioned any more about macros, but "flat field" means the lens focuses on a flat subject instead of having the field curved as on typical lenses. If you do copies of documents, or fallen leaves on the ground, etc., this is a nice feature.

I also use extension tubes (the old Nikon 27.5mm tube meant for the old 55mm lenses, the PN2 52.5mm tube meant for the MF 105 lenses). I use these on my 105, 200, and 300mm lenses.

Sometimes when I'm working dragonflies by the water's edge I'll use the 300/2.8 on one of these tubes, plus I'll put the old TC14A (1.4x for the big manual focus teles) between the camera and the tube. Whatever I need to get the magnification I want at the working distance I need.

Another neat setup that I used to use in the days of film was the 75-150 Series E zoom with a Nikon 3T diopter on the end of it. Working distance was determined by the 3T, with magnification controlled by the zoom. Nikon had 4 of these double element diopters: 3T and 4T in 52mm; 5T and 6T in 62mm I think. I've probably got the numbers mixed up a bit on these as I haven't messed with them in years.

I have the Nikkor 60mm micro f/2.8 and I love it. It doesn't have VR but with macro I don't think it's as necessary as with long lenses. The only downfall of the 60mm is you must develop good stalking skills to get really close but it delivers very sharp images and costs much less than the 105mm.

I don't do enough macro to justify the expense of another lens, but do like taking some macro shots. I bought a Canon 500D (similar to 5T etc. Ditch was talking about) and use it on my 70-200mm VR lens and also 80-400mm VR sometimes (for butterflies.) It actually does a credible job.


Kent in SD

What camera are you using? I use the Nikkor 105 on a D2Xs (DX camera) and find the working distance to be just about right for all the macro work I do. However, if I was using a FX camera I would probably spring for something in the 150-200 mm focal length range.

The 105 is an incredible lens and I highly recommend it. I do all my work on a tripod so VR is not important however if you plan on doing macro (insects) handheld (with or without flash) then VR is something you would want.

I have a d300s. I will be using it on a tripod often, but there will be plenty of handheld shots - mostly for dragonflies, butterflies, and frogs in the water. When I'm standing in a pond that's 3 ft. deep trying to photograph a 1" frog on a lilly pad, I'd rather be handholding. As for flash, there will be times when I'm using it, but plenty of times where I won't be.

- Luke

A dedicated macro lens will be of more service then using extention tubes just to get a macro shot.

We've got 55, 105 and 200mm Nikkor Ai macro lens plus a full array of extension tubes. Currently we're shooting D2X's and D300's. Funny thing is, we almost never use the extension tubes EXCEPT with the macro lenses. We've also got a set of the screw-in 500's somewhere, but haven't used them in years.

The biggest use of our macros is for tabletop shooting in the studio, but working distance is the big determiner of which we pick for a job. The 105 is the most useful because there's plenty of room for small reflectors and gobos, yet the subject is always within arms reach while you're behind the camera. The 55 makes you work too close, while the 200 puts things beyond arm reach.

There is actually no question about using a macro lens if Macro is what you want to do. Although I consider myself a "purist" as far as brand name equipment goes there will be few lenses that rival the quality of SIGMA`s 105mm, 150mm & 180mm macro lenses. I`m using the 150mm f/2.8 It is fast AND pin sharp. Not difficult to use as a "handheld" either.

Hi Luke,
I would like to clarify one thing. Over the years many people have said the 300mm I use is not the ideal lens for macro. That is a very accurate statement. The reason being, I don't shoot macro, I shoot close-up photography. I only shoot real bugs in real life situations. A short macro lens would be most difficult to use when appoaching weary insects, reptiles, etc. I'm normally shooting 2-4 feet from my subjects in heavy brush. Move the wrong stick or vine and off goes the subject. With the 300mm I can stay back for enough, in most situations, as not to disturb the subject. I also only shoot in very low ambient lighting with shutter speeds rarely faster than 1/8th of a second. So handholding is out for me and I really don't like artificial lighting (flash).
If your intent is true macro photography, 1:1 or greater ratios, you will need a dedicated macro lens and probably a good flash setup with diffusers. I personally would not use any macro lens shorter than 100mm. A shorter lens would require you to get closer to your subject and make it more difficult to achive optimum results with artificial lighting. If you are shooting frogs, dragonflies and butterflies, you might want to get a longer macro lens such as a 180mm or 200mm. Of coarse there is always the option of the 300mm with extension tubes.

Ronnie Gaubert

I have the older 105 micronikkor, have had it for a long time, and it is probably the sharpest of my lenses. I like the working distance, too. I use it with and without extension tubes depending on what I am shooting and the look I want. I have been craving to have VR as I do use it as a prime lens sometimes, too, and hand held at that.

My advice: new gen 105 + extension tubes. You'll be happy! And have quite a lot of macro versatility and a fantastic 105 prime. It's AFS and VR. I wouldn't go for the older 105; it's not AFS and the focus is slower and noisy.

The answer probably is: Both. They are two solutions for different situations. I'm using the 105/2.8 VR for handheld stuff, for floral shots, and when I really want to go to 1:1, or close. It's excellent for that (better than the 105/2.8 AF-D, IMO - colours, contrast, bokeh, in addition to the VR, which may or may not be useful). And then, I use an older Sigma 400/5.6 APO Tele Macro lens with a PN-11 and a PK-13 attached (I'd suggest these over the Kenkos, as they're sturdier, and you won't AF in that situation anyway, while your D300 meters with the Nikon tubes). That thing can only be handled on tripod, preferrably with mirror up and cable release. So, the situation in which I'd use this combo is very different from the one I'd approach with the VR Micro. But the results are great. You not only get much bigger working distance, but also better backgrounds due to a more narrow angle of view. I guess I don't need to mention from whom I got the idea to do things that way...

Luke: Tough call since the capabilities of the two options are significantly different. I much prefer long macro capabilities and I would really like to have a 300/4. I have a 300/2.8 but its just too heavy for hand holding and is even a bit of a bear on a tripod for macro with tubes. At least 90% of my macros are taken with a 200mm which is the perfect compromise for me and since I shoot Sony bodies I have stabilization with every lens. I do think VR is a big plus factor for the 100. I shoot a whole lot more hand held now that I have the anti-shake feature in the cameras. If you're chasing a butterfly or other moving critter and don't have the time to set up the tripod the extra stops you gain from VR is really worthwhile. BTW, I have the Kenko tubes and they work great on my rig. >=))>

For the larger butterflies, dragonflies and even wildflowers, I prefer to use the 300/4 AFS with 1.7X. You can focus on a subject as close as about 43 inches from the front element. For work with small insects, I love the 105 AF-D (I'd much rather have the AF-S) with a flash. I have an excellent old 200/4 Ai-S also, but use it only for wildflowers.

Since you mention insects and flowers, you are probably aware of the difficulty in getting sharp images over the desired depth of field. Often it is best to get a moth, butterfly or darner from directly above so that the wings are at right angles to the camera. Similarly, flora can have problems with acceptable sharpness over the field.I have used extension tubes, bellows, and auxiliary lenses ("diopters") with some success, but these were never as satisfactory as a true macro lens. Originally I bought a 60mm Micro Nikkor but this did not have the working distance that I wanted. I then got the 105mm Micro Nikkor which was much better in this regard. These both had compositional problems when trying to get proper DOF. Eventually I "bit the bullet" and purchased the 85mm tilt/shift PC Nikkor which gives excellent control over focus. This means that I no longer have to have everything at right angles to the camera and can keep only that which I want in focus, throwing everything else into a blur. This is close to having the rendition of a view camera without the cumbersome setup. It was an expensive lens, but one of the best investments I have ever made.