The Planted Tank Forum banner

Macro lens

9K views 55 replies 23 participants last post by  Patriot 
#1 ·
Which Macro lens do you guys use to get those cool shots of fish and shrimps?
 
#3 ·
How does it compare to a Nikon macro lens if you have one? I would really like a good macro lens Nikon or not. Do you use any tele-converter to get closer shots?
 
#4 ·
I have not used a Nikkor but from shots I have seen on the internet, they are very close. The Nikkor may be slightly better but is also much more expensive (double or triple the price). Another good option is the Sigma 105mm but it's also about double the Tamron.

I have also never used a teleconverter. I would like to try some extension tubes though.
 
#5 ·
I don't need something super expensive as long as i can see the shrimp details clearly. What does the extension tubes do? I never really hear of them.
 
#6 · (Edited)
They create space between the lens and the sensor. The farther away the lens is, the closer the focus, the greater the magnification. The tubes are just empty space so there is no deterioration of image quality. The trade off is that you have to adjust for exposure because the tubes will lesson the light getting in to the camera. You can get cheap tubes that make it so that you have to operate the lens fully manual with no input from the lens. You can get more expensive ones that have contacts so that your camera gets information (metering) from the lens and auto focus. They work very well and are a good option to getting a macro lens. The better tubes usually run a little less than $200 new. The Tamron will cost about $300 used and the other lenses go up from there in price.
 
#8 ·
The Kenko Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon allows auto-focus. However, in addition to cutting down on the light reaching the camera sensor, extension tube significantly reduces the focusing distance, meaning that you have to move the camera much closer to the object. Extension tube also cuts down on the depth of field causing very shallow focus.

Regarding the Nikon 105 lens, instead of the current generation (Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR), the previous generation (Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D) gives a much sharper image due to the much better control on chromatic aberrations. Here is the graphic comparison.

Current generation (Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR) chromatic aberrations:


Previous generation (Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D) chromatic aberrations:


For the complete reviews , see:

Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR

Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D

Here is a shot with the previous generation lens (Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D) on a D90:

 
#10 ·
canon 100mm









 
#11 ·
I've heard the Canon 100mm f/2.8 or the newer L one with IS are both very solid choices. Hard to say whether the extra $300 or so for the L designation and IS is worth it, but some of the aquarium photos I've seen with those babies are superb.
 
#12 ·
In the long run it's better to get the more expensive name brand camera lenses (Nikkor, Canon) if you can as they hold their value over time and are generally top quality, but getting the other lenses is good too IMO.
 
#15 ·
Choose whatever your wallet can afford or whatever you have around. That Raynox looks interesting and has decent reviews. Might order one to see how it performs with out of camera images.

Here are some pics from various lenses with and without attachments.

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Adaptall manual focus macro lens (picked up for ~$200 via eBay).




Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (not a macro lens...)


Nikon 105mm f/2.8 (non-VR)








Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro


Size of the fw limpet next to tip of a Bic pen to show relative size.


Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro


Nikon 50mm f/1.4D (another non-macro lens)




Same lens, but reverse mounted


105mm f/2.8 VR at 1:1


105mm f/2.8 VR at 1:1 with Kenko extension tubes


Baby mysis at ~0.25"


105mm VR @1:1 + all three Kenko tubes stacked


105mm VR at various magnification






Samsung Galaxy Nexus (cam phone for kicks :D ).
 
#18 ·
Nice. I ordered some super duper cheap extension ring set yesterday. I was at a park on Thursday and I saw this guy there for the same reason (photog) and he was getting some sweet shots with a T3i. Macro shots, that is. So I asked him what lens he was using, assuming he was knowledgeable on the subject (lol) and he says, "I don't really know man, but man, it works great. I got these cheap extension rings for like 8 bucks shipped on amazon and they work wonders." I think he must have seen the lightbulb over my head at that point, lol.
 
#19 ·
Nice. I ordered some super duper cheap extension ring set yesterday. I was at a park on Thursday and I saw this guy there for the same reason (photog) and he was getting some sweet shots with a T3i. Macro shots, that is. So I asked him what lens he was using, assuming he was knowledgeable on the subject (lol) and he says, "I don't really know man, but man, it works great. I got these cheap extension rings for like 8 bucks shipped on amazon and they work wonders." I think he must have seen the lightbulb over my head at that point, lol.
LMAO @ the bolds...

Yes, I tried the extension tube too, I even tried reversed lens (hand held). It is no doubt best bang for the buck. But the view finder become too dark for me to see at f8, I that's why I bought this Raynox, and it works like a charm for me.
 
#21 ·
When using the tube, the DOF becomes extremely shallow, so I have to use f8+. By doing so, the light entering the camera and the view finder is very little, hence I got dark view finder and can't see much to have the correct focus.

That's why I moved to raynox. The view finder is still very bright and clear, plus auto focus work and raynox's glass is very good, doesn't reduce any image quality :D

P/S: your tank in the sig is super!!! I had one mini too, not ADA of course, but it died haha...
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/tank-journals/136220-fishing-spot-hidden-treasure-mini-24l.html
 
#24 ·
Would someone run down the differences between the Canon 60 mm vs 100 mm lenses?

I'm looking at getting nice indoor/lightbox shots of my geckos in addition to aquarium photos, and am trying to figure out if spending 2x for the 100 mm is really justified for my DSLR Newb self...
 
#25 ·
The 100 mm will give you more working distance from the critters you are trying to photograph. Either one would work, but the extra distance will help to not spook the critter and make it an easier process.
 
#27 ·
#29 ·
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/60mm-macro.htm
Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro
This Canon 60mm macro is optically spectacular. It works well and has no downsides, other than being only 60mm and only working on the 1.6x sensor cameras.

If you really want to use this for macro, for only about $80 more the Canon 100mm macro is a much better choice. The 100mm gives you both more working room and a more natural perspective. Unless you're only using this on a copystand, you'll thank me for getting the 100mm macro for macro use.

This 60mm macro is ideal if you plan to use it for general photography and only on the smaller sensor cameras. If you plan to do a lot of macro, the 100mm makes it much more convenient. If you think you may eventually get a 1D or 5D, only the 100mm (and old 50mm macro) work on film and 1.3x and full-frame digital cameras.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top