Nikon Macro lens

meddyliol

meddyliol

Messages
74
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Can anyone recommend a good macro lens for my Nikon D90? I have been interested in one for a while but couldn't really afford one but I might be able to once we sell our house (I am not selling the house to buy a lens). I was thinking about a 105mm one, maybe Sigma?

Thanks
 
I'm not a Nikon shooter so don't have any specific recommendations, but a Sigma sounds like a good choice. No need to wait to sell your house though, get a lens adapter (achromat), reversing ring or some extension tubes to covert your existing lenses and give it a go!
 
I do have some cheap extension tubes (manual focus unfortunately). What is a lens adapter if that is not a stupid question?
 
meddyliol said:
I do have some cheap extension tubes (manual focus unfortunately). What is a lens adapter if that is not a stupid question?
Click to expand...
Not at all, I mean the additional lenses that you can stick on the front of your existing lens to give you macro capabilities. Raynox do some good ones, have a look at their 150 or 250 achromats.

A lot of macro work is done with manual focus (although some do use autofocus) what's more important for your extension tubes is the ability to stop down the aperture when mounted. I think some of the Nikon lenses let you do this with the lens itself and certainly most older lenses will let you do this. If you need the camera to control this however, you can attach the lens to the camera, and stop it down to what you want (around F13 is a good starting point). Then hold down the Depth of Field Preview button before removing it from the camera (keeping the camera powered on) before mounting the lens on the tubes. Same obviously applies if you are using a reversing ring.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. Will have a look at those. I have just seen one on ebay for £52.99, a bit cheaper that £600 plus for a Nikon Macro lens.

Cheers

Brian
 
Thank you Tim, I will definitely be getting one of those after doing some research. Seen another one (the 250 one) for £50.99 delivered. I don't know whether to go for the 150 or 250. Funnily enough, the 150 costs £5 more. Any advice as to which one to get?

Brian
 
meddyliol said:
Thanks for that. Will have a look at those. I have just seen one on ebay for £52.99, a bit cheaper that £600 plus for a Nikon Macro lens.
Click to expand...

Cheaper on Amazon for the 150.
 
Last edited:
I've not used them myself (but know others who do) - but I think it's just different levels of magnification. The 150 is easier to get to grips with, but may not give you enough magnification, I would suggest a 250, even if it's a bit of a challenge to begin with. Have a look in the macro/close up section and in particular some of @GardenersHelper's posts. He frequently users both of these..
 
OK, ta for that.
 
Brain look HERE and HERE

If you buy a Raynox it can be used with a macro lens later too.
 
Last edited:
Thanks you. Very, very useful info. I had no idea about this macro malarkey. Brilliant stuff and some brilliant pics too.
 
TimmyG said:
I've not used them myself (but know others who do) - but I think it's just different levels of magnification. The 150 is easier to get to grips with, but may not give you enough magnification, I would suggest a 250, even if it's a bit of a challenge to begin with. Have a look in the macro/close up section and in particular some of @GardenersHelper's posts. He frequently users both of these..
Click to expand...

To flesh this out a bit ...

The power of closeup lenses is measured in diopters - the higher the diopters the more magnification you get, the less depth of field you get, and the more difficult they are to use.

There are two sorts of closeup lenses - closeup filters and achromats.

Closeup filters often come in sets of three or four, with power 1, 2, 4 and sometimes also 10 diopters. These are really cheap (eg under a tenner). You get what you pay for. Each lens is made from a single piece of glass and they tend to suffer from a lot of chromatic aberration and other imperfections. They can be a good introduction to how closeup lenses work and to find out if you really do like doing closeups (some people can't get on with it, while others absolutely love it, and some become pretty much addicted to it. You have been warned.) If you do find you are into it, I expect you would soon want something better than closeup filters, but that said some people are happy with them, so it might be all you need.

Achromats are made of two or more pieces of glass and can produce good results when used on a suitable lens. (Like closeup filters) they work well on tele-zoom lenses in the 50-300mm range. You can change the amount of magnification by zooming in and out.

Achromats come in a range of powers. I use a Canon 500D (a closeup lens, not a camera) which is 2 diopters, a Raynox 150, which is 4.8 diopters, a Raynox 250, which is 8 diopters, and a Raynox MSN-202, which is 25 diopters. How much power you need depends on the size of your subjects, whether you want all of the subject or just some of it in the frame, and whether you want images of subjects in their wider environment.

For whole-subject shots of large insects like butterflies, craneflies, damselflies and dragonflies, something in the 2 to 3 diopter range is likely to be most suitable. (This is what I use the Canon 500D for, as well as using it for some flowers.)

For whole subject shots of wasps, bees, flies, beetles, and middling sized spiders, something in the 3 to 5 diopter range is likely to be most suitable. (This is what I use the Raynox 150 for).

For whole subject shots of smaller subjects I use more powerful setups. Some very small subjects need the most powerful of my achromats, but it is hugely difficult (for me at least) to get shots that are pleasing (to my eye at least). I wouldn't start at too high a magnification. (Actually, that is an advantage of a cheap filter set, if it includes a 10 diopter lens. You will very quickly find out how difficult it is to work at the higher magnifications.)

I almost always go for whole-subject and subject-in-its-environment shots. Many people prefer to get much closer in, and see the detail of a fly's eye, a dragonfly's head or a spider's mouthparts etc. If that is where your interest lies then I think Tim is right and it would be best to start with the Raynox 250 (perhaps after trying closeup filters to test the water). Some people get on well straight away with the Raynox 250. Other people (I am one of them) find it rather difficult to work with to start with, and some people find it too difficult and give up. Once you have got the hang of using them closeup lenses can be really easy to use. (It depends a bit on what camera and lens they are mounted on.)

Something like the Raynox 150 or a somewhat similar power Canon 250D or Marumi 200 would be much easier to get you into the swing of things. Something even less powerful such as the Canon 500D or the Marumi 330 would be even easier, but unless you are mainly interested in larger insects and flowers, then I don't think these would be powerful enough for you.
 
alfbranch said:
Brain look HERE and HERE
Click to expand...

To be honest, I wouldn't spend too much time on the second of those at this early stage - skim maybe, but there is a lot of minute detail written up at huge and tedious length. Instead, I'd suggest having a look at the Show us your rig thread. You'll see there what a huge variety of ways there are of tackling closeups/macros, and how much really creative DIY goes into the rigs people here use.
 
From what you have all said, I am going to go for the 150 one to start with (used for £35). Can I add close up filters to it as well? Just one more thing, obvious maybe but I will ask anyway. Advertisers are selling these things for different cameras, one seller has multiple adverts for Fiji, Canon, Sony etc but surely they are actually all the same?
 
Last edited:
I can highly recommend the sigma 105mm f2.8 OS HSM. Sharp and good build quality. Here's some of my latest efforts (I'm FAR from an expert at this genre)

DSC_9577 by -TDG-77-
DSC_9588 by -TDG-77-
DSC_8056 2 by -TDG-77-
DSC_8785 by -TDG-77-


I have the Raynox 250 as mentioned above, and whilst this is a good cheap option it has its limitations in that DOF is tiny and working distance is small making it very difficult to get close to critters.
 
meddyliol said:
I am going to go for the 150 one to start with (used for £35). Can I add close up filters to it as well?
Click to expand...
alfbranch said:
You can stack another Raynox with it .
Click to expand...

Indeed so. I use the 150 and 250 stacked. What I wouldn't do is to add a close up filter, as this will seriously degrade the image quality.
 
snerkler said:
I have the Raynox 250 as mentioned above, and whilst this is a good cheap option it has its limitations in that DOF is tiny and working distance is small making it very difficult to get close to critters.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that DOF is entirely dependent on the size of scene/magnification and the aperture used, and is independent of the optics used (macro lens, achromat, reversed lens, extension tube, bellows, teleconverter). So the Raynox 250 is no worse or better in terms of DOF than any other optic.

The working distance with an achromat can actually be larger than the working distance you get with a prime macro lens. For example, I too have the Sigma 105 Macro HSM. I have measured the minimum working distance of the Sigma 105 on my Canon 70D as about 140mm, and at this distance you get a scene width of about 22mm. (It is a 1:1 lens of course, and Canon APS-C sensors are 22.5 mm wide.) With the Raynox 150 on my FZ200 I can get the same scene width with a working distance of up to around 200mm. In fact, I can get further than that, to about 1.5:1, at the same working distance. So, with the Raynox 150 I can get more magnification with a larger working distance than the Sigma 105. With the Raynox 250 on the FZ200 I can get to about 2.4:1 at a working distance of about 100mm, which is about twice the working distance when using the MPE-65 at a similar magnification.
 
GardenersHelper said:
I think you'll find that DOF is entirely dependent on the size of scene/magnification and the aperture used, and is independent of the optics used (macro lens, achromat, reversed lens, extension tube, bellows, teleconverter). So the Raynox 250 is no worse or better in terms of DOF than any other optic.

The working distance with an achromat can actually be larger than the working distance you get with a prime macro lens. For example, I too have the Sigma 105 Macro HSM. I have measured the minimum working distance of the Sigma 105 on my Canon 70D as about 140mm, and at this distance you get a scene width of about 22mm. (It is a 1:1 lens of course, and Canon APS-C sensors are 22.5 mm wide.) With the Raynox 150 on my FZ200 I can get the same scene width with a working distance of up to around 200mm. In fact, I can get further than that, to about 1.5:1, at the same working distance. So, with the Raynox 150 I can get more magnification with a larger working distance than the Sigma 105. With the Raynox 250 on the FZ200 I can get to about 2.4:1 at a working distance of about 100mm, which is about twice the working distance when using the MPE-65 at a similar magnification.
Click to expand...
Well you're not comparing apples with apples there are you, so of course you can make it have larger DOF etc with situations like that. But the OP is wanting to use it on a DSLR not a bridge with teeny sensor.

I wasn't saying not to go for it, just making him aware of the limitations, another being severe vignetting with certain lens combos. You can get very good shots with it but you need to get used to it. I actually got my best shots with it on a 55-300mm.
 
snerkler said:
Well you're not comparing apples with apples there are you, so of course you can make it have larger DOF etc with situations like that. But the OP is wanting to use it on a DSLR not a bridge with teeny sensor.

I wasn't saying not to go for it, just making him aware of the limitations, another being severe vignetting with certain lens combos. You can get very good shots with it but you need to get used to it. I actually got my best shots with it on a 55-300mm.
Click to expand...

With achromats, working distance and DOF are not dependent on sensor size.

Working distance

For example, with the Raynox 150 on my 55-250 on my 70D I can get a 20mm scene width (a bit more than 1:1) at a working distance of 200mm, exactly the same working distance as with the FZ200. And with the Raynox 150 on my 45-175 on my G5 I can get a 22mm scene width, also at 200mm working distance.

With the Raynox 250 on my 55-250 on my 70D I can get a 12mm scene width (almost 2:1) at a working distance of 115mm, which is actually more than the 100mm working distance of the Raynox 250 on my FZ200 with its smaller sensor. And with the Raynox 250 on my 45-175 on my G5 I can get a 13mm scene width, also at 115mm working distance.

DOF

You can get the same DOF using an achromat like the Raynox 250 on a dSLR as you can on a small sensor camera like the FZ200.

It is true that you get greater DOF for a given aperture with a smaller sensor. However, the lenses on cameras with larger sensors let you use smaller apertures. This means you can get the same DOF on cameras with different sensor sizes.

For example, the minimum aperture is f/8 on the FZ200, f/22 on the 45-175 and f/22 to f/32 depending on focal length on the 55-250. I can get the same DOF using f/8 on the FZ200, f/22 on the G5 and f/29 on the 70D.

This is confirmed by these calculations using the second calculator on this page at Cambridge in Colour.


FZ200 vs Canon APS-C dSLR DOF equivalent apertures by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


FZ200 vs Four Thirds DOF equivalent apertures by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thanks you all for your in depth replies. I now know? how to proceed.

Cheers

Brian
 
GardenersHelper said:
With achromats, working distance and DOF are not dependent on sensor size.

Working distance

For example, with the Raynox 150 on my 55-250 on my 70D I can get a 20mm scene width (a bit more than 1:1) at a working distance of 200mm, exactly the same working distance as with the FZ200. And with the Raynox 150 on my 45-175 on my G5 I can get a 22mm scene width, also at 200mm working distance.

With the Raynox 250 on my 55-250 on my 70D I can get a 12mm scene width (almost 2:1) at a working distance of 115mm, which is actually more than the 100mm working distance of the Raynox 250 on my FZ200 with its smaller sensor. And with the Raynox 250 on my 45-175 on my G5 I can get a 13mm scene width, also at 115mm working distance.

DOF

You can get the same DOF using an achromat like the Raynox 250 on a dSLR as you can on a small sensor camera like the FZ200.

It is true that you get greater DOF for a given aperture with a smaller sensor. However, the lenses on cameras with larger sensors let you use smaller apertures. This means you can get the same DOF on cameras with different sensor sizes.

For example, the minimum aperture is f/8 on the FZ200, f/22 on the 45-175 and f/22 to f/32 depending on focal length on the 55-250. I can get the same DOF using f/8 on the FZ200, f/22 on the G5 and f/29 on the 70D.

This is confirmed by these calculations using the second calculator on this page at Cambridge in Colour.


FZ200 vs Canon APS-C dSLR DOF equivalent apertures by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


FZ200 vs Four Thirds DOF equivalent apertures by gardenersassistant, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Thanks, although I do know perfectly well how DOF works. However, my reference to DOF was more in reference to how it looks through the viewfinder when focussing rather than the end result and so I should have made that more clear.

From my experience WD was massively reduced with the raynox whether I focussed close or to infinite, don't know why just was. However, I won't argue against you as my knowledge of achromats isn't as strong as the rest of my photography knowledge ;)
 
Very nice pics Snerkler, I really wanted to get one of those Sigma's, maybe when I move to Canada next year.

Brian
 
another vote for a Sigma 150mm HSM...(also doubles very well as a portrait lens)
 
meddyliol said:
Thank you Tim, I will definitely be getting one of those after doing some research. Seen another one (the 250 one) for £50.99 delivered. I don't know whether to go for the 150 or 250. Funnily enough, the 150 costs £5 more. Any advice as to which one to get?

Brian
Click to expand...
I think i paid £39 for the raynox 250 from Amazon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top