Beginner lens upgrade/macro advice

iwols · 10 Jul 2015

hi all as in my other threads i am using a tamron 90mm lens for macro but find im a little too close especially when i use the dcr 250,so here is my dilema.....i have a Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens for general out and about lens, which isnt macro,and i have a 90mm tamron macro,which i use for macro,im looking for something which will replace both, be good for mainly macro and have some form of stabilisation and be in the ,range of the 70-300 ish with to allow a longer working distance for macro...and at least 1:1.... ,what do i look for especially for macro....the more i look the more confused i get thanks again guys for any input,fx body

yorkshirechap · 10 Jul 2015

I think we need to boil down what you actually want.

Combining a true macro and a walkabout lens probably isn't the best idea. Shall we start with what body you use, what you shoot, where and how?

iwols · 11 Jul 2015

hi d750,small insects,garden and tripod/handheld

yorkshirechap · 12 Jul 2015

iwols said:
hi d750,small insects,garden and tripod/handheld

Right, so you have a decent camera body in the d750.

For a general lens, what about a 50mm 1.8 g series. Aside from being sharp as a tack, the price is a steal. Macro wise, the Sigma 105 is very sharp indeed. You already have a 90mm (macro?), although the Sigma I mention is undoubtedly a better lens and well priced.

I don't think you'll find a single lens which will fit the requirements you specified, you'll have to compromise somewhere. The above would be my choice combination. I own both and have yet to be disappointed with either.

Here is a rough test shot with the Sigma 105 to show how sharp it can be. I don't shoot insects so no examples of that type I'm afraid. Working distance for this shot was around 40cm. 25 shot stack, uncorrected. I've done a little sharpening in post processing, but not much.

View attachment 41595

SsSsSsSsSnake · 12 Jul 2015

May i ask what a shot stack is and is it easy to do.
Thanks

yorkshirechap · 12 Jul 2015

SsSsSsSsSnake said:
May i ask what a shot stack is and is it easy to do.
Thanks

Of course you may. Stacking shots or rather, focus stacking, is a way of over coming normal limitations due to (lack of) depth of field. In macro work, the depth of field is extremely shallow, even at relatively high apertures. In the above case, f11 was chosen for lens performance. To ensure the whole subject is in focus, you take several images of the subject at what amount to essentially different focus points. Starting at the closest part of the object and then working backwards along the focal plane (relative to the camera of course) backwards until you reach the furthest point of the object. The images are then blended together in post processing to make the final image, as above. It can take quite a while to blend the images together and I've only done the above very roughly.

Focus stacking is most often used in macro, but is also used in other disciplines when you want to achieve depth of field which would be otherwise impossible.

I would say that it is quite a technically complex area of photography and many specialists in this area will use equipment such as focusing rails and allow software to control the focusing. The adjustments needed are often minute. That said, it can be done using the camera hand held. It's just rather difficult and will take a fair bit of practice to get it right. I'd try a static subject indoors first. With a 100mm macro, even a light breeze outdoors will have your subject moving all over the place, making it difficult to get it right. Having steady hands and good camera technique will help tremendously.

I hope this helps.

SsSsSsSsSnake · 12 Jul 2015

Thankyou Yorkshire chap :ty:

iwols · 13 Jul 2015

yorkshirechap said:
Right, so you have a decent camera body in the d750.

For a general lens, what about a 50mm 1.8 g series. Aside from being sharp as a tack, the price is a steal. Macro wise, the Sigma 105 is very sharp indeed. You already have a 90mm (macro?), although the Sigma I mention is undoubtedly a better lens and well priced.

I don't think you'll find a single lens which will fit the requirements you specified, you'll have to compromise somewhere. The above would be my choice combination. I own both and have yet to be disappointed with either.

Here is a rough test shot with the Sigma 105 to show how sharp it can be. I don't shoot insects so no examples of that type I'm afraid. Working distance for this shot was around 40cm. 25 shot stack, uncorrected. I've done a little sharpening in post processing, but not much.

View attachment 41595

thanks for the replies but the main thing is to be able to get the 1:1 but at a greater distance from the subject as both the 90 and 105 especially with the dcr 250 on are extremely close to the subject

yorkshirechap · 13 Jul 2015

iwols said:
thanks for the replies but the main thing is to be able to get the 1:1 but at a greater distance from the subject as both the 90 and 105 especially with the dcr 250 on are extremely close to the subject

Working distance for a 100mm at 1:1 is approx 15cm. For a 200mm this increases to around 25cm. These are fixed ratios.

There is a 200mm macro from Nikon but its heavy, expensive and not very beginner friendly at all. As a highly specialist lens, it is an old design from 1993 and due an update, but can still be had for around £1k. Used examples sometimes come up for sale on here.

If you're looking at true macro lenses, the DCR is unnecessary. It would provide more magnification yes, but if you're a beginner I think you'd find the combination unusable. Super macro work is a huge step up and involves close working distances.

Can I point you at an article on DP Review? It might be worth your while to read. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6519974919/macro-photography-understanding-magnification

gad-westy · 13 Jul 2015

Going back to your original OP, I think you're asking for nearly the impossible. The only thing that I can think that is even close is the Nikon 70-180 1:1 zoom lens. It's not small though! And it won't have stabilisation.

You could look at Sigma 150 and 180mm macro lenses (newer ones have OS but cost a bit). I think Tamron do a 180mm as well. Both a little more affordable than the Nikon 200mm at least. I don't think changing from a 90mm Tamron to a 105mm Sigma is really going to change much for you other than give you slightly more working distance. IQ will be pretty similar. Agree with Yorkshireman about the Raynox too. You'll be working very hard indeed to get any depth of field with that on a 1:1 macro lens. You could try one on your Tamron 70-300 though and see how you get on.

yorkshirechap · 13 Jul 2015

gad-westy said:
Going back to your original OP, I think you're asking for nearly the impossible. The only thing that I can think that is even close is the Nikon 70-180 1:1 zoom lens. It's not small though! And it won't have stabilisation.

You could look at Sigma 150 and 180mm macro lenses (newer ones have OS but cost a bit). I think Tamron do a 180mm as well. Both a little more affordable than the Nikon 200mm at least. I don't think changing from a 90mm Tamron to a 105mm Sigma is really going to change much for you other than give you slightly more working distance. IQ will be pretty similar. Agree with Yorkshireman about the Raynox too. You'll be working very hard indeed to get any depth of field with that on a 1:1 macro lens. You could try one on your Tamron 70-300 though and see how you get on.

I totally agree. Except about the Sigma 105 which has slightly better IQ than the nikkor 100mm, for a third of the price and will be vastly superior, in the right hands, to the 90mm tamron. Then again, stick the DCR on anything and it will hamstring it.

I dont think the Tamron he has is a macro, unless I am mistaken, hence the suggestion. A beginner is going to really struggle with anything above a 100mm macro I think. Heck, experienced togs do, especially in the field and hand held is nigh on impossible with anything longer unless you have the patience of a saint.

There's always lens hire!

gad-westy · 14 Jul 2015

I assumed Iwols was referring to the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro. If so, It's a true macro lens and a great one at that.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/round-ups/lens_round-ups/third-party-macro-lenses-10023/5

That's why I was suggesting caution in terms of switching to a 105 Sigma. Although that is also a great lens, it's unlikely to offer much (other than a little more working distance) over the Tamron.

iwols · 14 Jul 2015

cheers guys where is the working distance calculated to ,is it the sensor,if so i might be loosing a lot of my working distance with the tamron 90mm macro lens,as this extends quite a bit any thoughts thanks,keep looking at the sigma 150mm macro

HoppyUK · 14 Jul 2015

iwols said:
cheers guys where is the working distance calculated to ,is it the sensor,if so i might be loosing a lot of my working distance with the tamron 90mm macro lens,as this extends quite a bit any thoughts thanks,keep looking at the sigma 150mm macro

Lens manufacturers quote closest focus from the sensor. What's important for macro is known as the minimum working distance, measured from the front of the lens.

The marked focal length is only a rough guide to that, as it measured at infinity focus and internal focusing lenses tend to reduce focal length as distance is reduced and that is never stated. For example, Canon has two 100mm f/2.8 macros, but at 1:1 the older non-IS version has a MWD of 15cm, while the newer L IS version is 13cm. Some other actual measurements: Tamron 90/2.8 VC 14cm, Sigma 105/2.8 OS 14cm, Nikon 105/2.8 VR 14cm, Sigma 150/2.8 OS 18cm, Sigma 180/2.8 OS 22cm, Canon 180/3.5 L 24cm. The Tamron classic 90/2.8 non-VC loses effective MFD because of the deeply recessed front element, ending up at 10cm; ditto the Tokina 100/2.8 with 11cm.

Edit: on the general question of working distances, it becomes a problem if you want to go higher than about 1:1. If focal length is simply increased, the amount of physical movement required, both within the optics or externally by shifting the whole lens, becomes impractical as longer focal lengths need much greater movements than shorter ones to achieve the same effect. That's why Canon's extreme macro lens, the MP-E 65mm f/2.8, has a quite short focal length, but even then it still needs to triple in physical size with its amazing telescoping barrel at 5:1 magnification.