Macro photography

Messages
3,413
Name
Gil
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm interested in delving into the world of macro photography and want to go try capturing insects while away in Africa. Unfortunately I'm limited to only being able to take smaller lenses so I'm reluctantly having to leave my 150-600 behind. So no bird photography and I'd like to try something else instead.

Can anybody recommend macro lenses that would allow me to fill my frame well when my subjects will be small to medium sized bugs.
 
Rather than change lenses you could go for a second camera. I have a film era Sigma 50mm f2.8 which is a true 1:1 macro unlike some others of its day which needed a tube. The advantage of this is that you retain infinity focus and can therefore use the lens as a macro, portrait or general purpose lens. On a x2 crop MFT body this gives me a FF equivalent focal length of 100mm. A second camera adds to the bulk but I'm sure you could get a used MFT body and film era macro for less than the price of a modern AF macro lens.
 
Last edited:
If you are planning to take your D500 with you then you can't go wrong with the Nikon 105mm F2.8. Amazing lens.
 
What other lenses do you have?
You could try extension tubes or a front mounted supplementary lens (raynox?)
70/200 zooms take extension tubes well, or really any lens of about 100mm or above.
Matt
 
I've the Nikon AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR but that's it!! Oh and my Tamron 150-600.
Would extension tubes work with my lens?
Otherwise I'd be keen on another Nikon lens.
Is a tripod necessary if you have a flash?
 
When you're working that close, depth-of-field is three-fifths of eff-all, even at small apertures. A tripod will help you get more in-focus shots as long as your subjects are reasonably stationary.
Your 16-80mm should work with extension tubes but make sure you buy tubes that are fully auto like Kenko. If you buy manual tubes you won't be able to set the aperture.
As already mentioned, do consider the Sigma 105mm as an alternative to the Nikon 105mm as it really is an excellent lens.
 
Check out the Raynox high quality clip-on macro "filter" lenses. A cheaper and more portable introduction to macro photography. Note that it takes considerable skill and practice to be able to get hand-held macro shots. A tripod is close to essential.
 
A tripod is ok for completely static subjects but I personally find it more of a hindrance when chasing bugs. All of my macro shots are handheld. The best thing is to set the focus on whatever magnification suits the subject then just rock the camera/yourself backwards/forwards to get focus. Don't use autofocus because it will never lock on to moving bugs with such shallow depth of field.
 
I have never used a tripod for macro, like stevelmx5 says, it's more of a hindrance. If you use off cam flash, which IMO is much more essential, this negates the need for a tripod. A tripod won't help freeze the breeze, and p close a slight breeze can seem like a hurricane. Flash does a good job of it
 
Last edited:
I have never used a tripod for macro, like stevelmx5 says, it's more of a hindrance. If you use off cam flash, which IMO is much more essential, this negates the need for a tripod. A tripod won't help freeze the breeze, and p close a slight breeze can seem like a hurricane. Flash does a good job of it

^^this
 
Why not hire (or buy 2nd hand and sell after the trip) a Nikon 300mm F4 and a 1.4tc. The new version is tiny and the old version is not huge and very cheap 2nd hand Both of these lens have a very short minimum focus distance so is very good for larger insects (Dragonflies, Butterflies etc.). If you add a good close up lens, something like a Canon 500D it makes a very good macro lens, going to just about 1:1. I use this combination (I started with the AFS version and upgraded to the PF) as my lens of choice for insects (and I own a 105mm), the longer working distance is fantastic. The really big plus is a 300mm and 1,4tc is a very sharp handholdable birding lens, so as combination this gives you a lot of flexibility.
 
Check out the Raynox high quality clip-on macro "filter" lenses. A cheaper and more portable introduction to macro photography. Note that it takes considerable skill and practice to be able to get hand-held macro shots. A tripod is close to essential.
The Raynox lenses are good but not an appropriate suggestion for two reasons:
They won't fit Gil's 16-80mm's 72mm filter thread and would give severe vignetting if they did.
The magnification they'd give with an 80mm lens would be minimal. They give much better results with longer lenses.

In this case, extension tubes are a much better option and easier to use.
 
Why not hire (or buy 2nd hand and sell after the trip) a Nikon 300mm F4 and a 1.4tc. The new version is tiny and the old version is not huge and very cheap 2nd hand Both of these lens have a very short minimum focus distance so is very good for larger insects (Dragonflies, Butterflies etc.). If you add a good close up lens, something like a Canon 500D it makes a very good macro lens, going to just about 1:1. I use this combination (I started with the AFS version and upgraded to the PF) as my lens of choice for insects (and I own a 105mm), the longer working distance is fantastic. The really big plus is a 300mm and 1,4tc is a very sharp handholdable birding lens, so as combination this gives you a lot of flexibility.

I have been tempted by the nikon 300mm f4 pf and its portability. Hadn't realised it could be used as a macro at distance too. Tbh I'll probably be looking for the smallest lens I can find to carry in addition to my 16-80. And perhaps I may take my tripod for some long exposures at sunset. Not looking to spend too much and although the nikon 300 would be the perfect solution Id need to sell my Tamron 150-600 in order to raise money.

I'll have to keep an eye on classified on here for a bargain. The nikon and sigma 105s look like my best options or maybe the auto kenko tubes that Snapshot had recommended
 
Last edited:
By coincidence bumped into a friend who had recently purchased the Nikon 105mm f2.8. Was lucky enough to give it a go for 10 minutes. Here's my first attempt at macro photography - handheld. A bit too high in the ISO department - can understand now why using a flash comes in handy!! I found it fascinating watching insects picking up pollen and going about their busy lifestyle!! I could really get into this!! Focusing I assume should be manual - I found the adjustments required were miniscule.

HSC_3337 by Gilbo B, on Flickr
 
a small tripod is worth the investment ...... technique is important and try not to shade the subject with your body when getting in close

It's always worth experimenting with the in camera flash if you do not want to take a separate flash

as an aside, the 105mm macro is good for portraits and general stuff

(Birds: I use the 300 f4 PF + the TC's a lot for birds - use it all the time when I am in S Africa - I don't now take my 300mm f2.8VR or 600mm f4 ......... I can manage with the 300 PF)
 
Last edited:
It's always worth experimenting with the in camera flash if you do not want to take a separate flash
They tend to get shielded by the lens, hence ring flash mounting on the end of the lens or using off camera flash.
Matt
 
They tend to get shielded by the lens, hence ring flash mounting on the end of the lens or using off camera flash.
Matt

Thanks Matt - I have a Nikon R1C1 that I use sometimes .... but the light is very good in Africa and I find that I don't need to use it so much........... ..especially if you step back a little and trust the slightly higher ISO's ........ my problem always seems to be getting the "best" light on the subject ........... and I have found the on camera flash can help ..... but I use the Nikon V1, (with the FT-1), as much as I use a DSLR for close up shots

Here's a shot at ISO 2000 - D750 - on camera flash - Nikon 105mm f2.8VR @ f9 and 1/200th sec

Green_thing.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just googled an r1c1, similar to the canon unit mt-24. I have the canon ring flash, seems to work quite well when I use it on a reasonably bright day as fill flash.
 
Just googled an r1c1, similar to the canon unit mt-24. I have the canon ring flash, seems to work quite well when I use it on a reasonably bright day as fill flash.

I probably not too skilled in using it ...... the Nikon demos look great but when I'm "in the field" ........ it does not see to work that well for me ............ my problem not the kit ......... I think that I need to practice more ........... it cost enough!!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top