Ideal macro kit

winsnick

winsnick

Messages
201
Name
Nicolas
Edit My Images
Yes
Helllo !
I have a d700 and a decent tripod (thanks to all your help). I would like to get into macro photography but before looking at prices etc... I would like to have your opinion as to what would be the ideal setup to have, lenses, flashes, etc...

No price limit but no waste of money either.
The photos I like are of flowers and insects (including spiders,butterflies and dragonflies). No snakes or reptiles.

Thanks to all those who take part!
Nicolas.
 
There are several ways to start macro, what is your budget?
 
For insects I'd say a macro lens with a focal length of around 100mm is good. I've got the Canon EF 100 f/2.8 USM Macro and it does me proud. I looked at the sigma 105 but didn't like the fact that the length changed when focussing and the noisy AF. I'm also not a fan of the Tamron 90 because of the variable length. I think the Sigma 150 has internal focussing.

For insects you'll definitely need some sort of flash. I've got a sigma ringflash but in hindsight I think I may have been better off getting a flash bracket and off camera cable to use my speedlight. A friend of mine gets really good results using the Nikon close up flash kit which consists of 3 remotely triggered flashes on bracket around the lens.
 
I'm not sure of the Nikon equivalents but when I was shooting macro, I used a Canon 180mm f3.5. I also had a Tamron 90mm. I'm more of a natural light kind of guy. However, if I wanted to use flash, I would use my speedlight with a flashbracket.
 
LOL, okay since money appears no limit, here's my ideal Nikon macro kit which would cover flowers and insects nicely:

200mm F4 Micro Nikkor for maximum working distance and doubles as a telephoto - £1100
Nikon R1C1 flash kit - £600(ish)

Neither of which I'd class as a waste of money!

Carl
 
the ideal kit is only made by Canon - MP-e65mm so you would need to change brands............. I know because i did :) , but failing that the Nikon 105mm VR and the R1C1 macro Flash will get you going.
 
winsnick said:
I have a d700 ... [&] ... would like to get into macro photography ... No price limit but no waste of money ...
Click to expand...
From looking at your Flickr site I see that you know what you're doing and have an SB-800 or SB-900 already. So, the Nikon R1C1 kit (SB-R200s with a SU-800 Commander) is the Speedlight designed for the job. The alternative is to use a SC-28 or similar with a bracket to move your existing speedlight to be nearer the front of the rig.

For a lens I would recommend the Nikon 200 mm f/4 micro. It will give you macro at a good stand-off distance. However, if you don't mind getting in closer or want to work off of a tripod etc then the 105 mm micro is a cheaper option. The old (non VR ) version would be my suggestion. Why? Because Nikon say that it's best to not to use the VR on their latest 105 mm micro when shooting macro! So why pay for VR etc when I'm guessing you already have a decent lens of that focal length for portraits etc.

Just my opinion ... ! Waiting for others to join in ...
 
Thank you everyone for your input. I was really wondering about this VR thing. Yes, lots of second hand 105mm for sale at the moment, but if I'm taking an insect and need to shoot at 1/30 or 1/15 in natural light, won't VR help a little?
As for the flash kit, do I need the R1C1 or will the R1 set be enough (I mean can my body command the kit ?).
As for the 200mm, that will need to be on a tripod I suppose, with flashes... or else it must be pretty useless!
 
If you have a controller built into the body you can just get the R1 - i used to use that with a D300 and if you want a bit longer working distance the sigma 150mm f2.8 macro is a excellent lens on the Nikon body and its hand holdable with practice. As for VR Nikon used to recommend you switched it off for 1:1 macro shots.
 
That VR thing: here's a quote from Thom Hogan:
Oh, you want to know about that caveat, do you? The exact words in the Nikon manual say "As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x [sic], the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." In other literature, Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use. What's the real answer? The manual is correct, basically. The closer you focus, the less VR has an impact on the final image.​

"... can my body command the kit ...": from the D700 manual:
Use the built-in flash as a master flash controlling one or more
remote optional SB-900, SB-800, SB-600, or SB-R200 flash units​

So, yes it can, but it's worth reading page 314 as well (section on Commander Mode with big tick).

"As for the 200mm, that will need to be on a tripod I suppose": I think the same can be said of the 105 mm; however this, although it is not as sharp as I would like, was hand-held (with R1C1) and I hope to do better next time. This comes from the same outing.
 
Thank you Dogfish and PickleB !
PickeB, were your pictures taken with a 200mm ? (on smugmug, the info says 200mm, 300mm in 35mm, shouldn't it be 300mm, 200mm in 35mm ?)
Great shots by the way, taken at 1/60 handheld, I bet the flash freezes the movement a bit.
 
Since you're on full frame, the 200mm Nikon is maybe preferable to the 105mm, but the 200 is pretty big and only f/4, whereas the 105 is f/2.8 and has VR.

VR is less effective for macro because it doesn't correct for shift movement that is a bigger factor in macro - that's what the new Canon Hybrid IS does on their new 100L 2.8 macro. However, I have to say that I find regular IS/VR is actually quite useful for macro and definitely makes framing up easier (stabilises the viewfinder image also) even when using flash. I certainly don't turn it off.

Some kind of macro-flash or ring-flash is absolutely essential IMHO, and Nikon make some v nice ones. Lose the tripod for the kind of shooting you've mentioned, nothing but a flippin pain, and switch to manual focus - much easier, AF drives you mad shooting macro.

Maybe the choice of lens should be decided by the secondary use you might put it to? Eg 105 is sweet for portraits. Saying that, I sold my two macro lenses and now use a 70-200L 4 IS zoom with extension tubes for macro - I get much more flexibility on framing options with the ability to change both magnification and shooting distance with the zoom. Quality is excellent - the great stength of a macro lenses is good field flatness and minimal distortion, which is only really important with critical flat subjects like documents, stamps and coins etc. With most macro photography three quarters of the image is out of focus anyway.
 
winsnick said:
... PickeB, were your pictures taken with a 200mm ? (on smugmug, the info says 200mm, 300mm in 35mm, shouldn't it be 300mm, 200mm in 35mm ?) ... I bet the flash freezes the movement a bit.
Click to expand...
Hello winscick and thanks for the compliment. Yes, they were taken with the 200 mm f/4 micro. I think the SmugMug info refers to the 200 mm lens on my D90 DX body giving a field of view equivalent to a 300 mm using FX. If you download the photo in original (O) size the full data becomes available to Kuso and Opanda exif viewers. The former then shows ‘Lensspec’ as ‘200mm f/4 D’.

Fortunately the butterflies were generally still so movement wasn't a problem and the robin was also very obliging in posing for us. So, yes, the flash was doing all the work to give me some depth of field. My difficulty was that I had to stand back and other photographers (and little kids) would interpose themselves - but we had plenty of time so it wasn't really a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top