I have a D90 and an 18-135 walkabout plus a 70-300VR. When I sell my D50, my next purchase will probably be a macro lens as I have more interest in close up than landscape. I have started to look at various makes other than Nikon, but what is the difference , if any, between a micro and a macro lens or is it the same thing but called differently between manufacturers?
Macro or Micro?
- Thread starter madmardle
- Start date
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There's no difference that matters - not as far as lenses are concerned anyway Ken. Nikon use the prefix 'Micro' for their macro lenses, while Canon prefer 'Macro', but they both just refer to lenses capable of producing at least a life sized (1:1) image on the sensor or film - some can exceed that by quite a lot, but it varies. If it can't do 1:1 though then it aint a macro lens. The zoom lenses we see advertised as macro zooms aren't macro lenses at all, they're just capable of getting a bit closer to your subjects than you normally could which is handy, but nowhere near 'close' in real macro terms.
It can get a bit confusing as often the term micro photography literally means attaching the camera to a microscope and that's a whole different ball game altogether.
It can get a bit confusing as often the term micro photography literally means attaching the camera to a microscope and that's a whole different ball game altogether.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,343
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is defined in terms of lenses of course, but FWIW (and off on a bit of a tangent) when 1:1 is used more generally in terms of the relative size of a scene and its representation on a sensor (irrespective of the lens used), then there are some slightly interesting implications.
Take a scene 20mm across. (All numbers here are rounded to the nearest whole number)
If captured on a full frame camera, which has a sensor width of 35mm, the capture is greater than 1:1, and so a macro.
If captured on an APS-C camera, which has a sensor width of between 21mm and 29mm, the capture is still greater than 1:1, and so a macro.
If captured on a micro four thirds camera, which has a sensor width of 18mm, the capture is less than 1:1, and so is not a macro.
If captured on a superzoom camera with a sensor of width, say, 6mm, the capture is not a macro. Indeed, any scene of greater than 6mm width would not be a macro on this superzoom.
FWIW, and depending on the context, I often find it helpful to think in terms of scene widths. It is arbitrary of course, but how about "if the scene width is 35mm or less then it's a macro"?
OK Guys,
Thanks very much for the response, that's more or less what I thought, now comes the nitty gritty question, which micro/macro lens would you recommend? I'm talking about what I could afford with the price I could get for used Nikon D50, plus a bit, and a lens that I could also use for portraiture and/or general photography as I don't have the funds for a specialised lens that only does macro.
Thanks very much for the response, that's more or less what I thought, now comes the nitty gritty question, which micro/macro lens would you recommend? I'm talking about what I could afford with the price I could get for used Nikon D50, plus a bit, and a lens that I could also use for portraiture and/or general photography as I don't have the funds for a specialised lens that only does macro.
iamchrisphoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 637
- Name
- Chris Scuffins
- Edit My Images
- No
I suggested this in a similar thread earlier, but the 2 best choices would be maybe the nikon 60mm f2.8 or the recently introduced 40mm f2.8 dx. I have also heard good things about the sigma 105mm macro, but you may find that too long on a DX body....
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Do Nikon do anything along the lines of Canon's MP-E 65mm yet ?
I had this lens for a while - fantastic bit of kit (anything from 1x to 5x reproduction) but far too dedicated for my level of interest in macro.
I had this lens for a while - fantastic bit of kit (anything from 1x to 5x reproduction) but far too dedicated for my level of interest in macro.
Last edited:
ShoeQueen
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,370
- Name
- Lynn
- Edit My Images
- No
I've just borrowed this from a friend to have a play with (on a D90) - anyone have any tips how to use it? I'm not sure I'm using it correctly - I can't control/set aperture?
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My gut instinct every time would be the longer the better to give you more room between your lens and your subjects which is less disturbing for them and gives you more room to arrange lighting where necessary as it can be a real problem at short distances. It also imposes greater discipline if you're hand holding though on the debit side.
With regard to using it for portraits and as a 'normal' short tele zoom - I found with the 180L macro lens that it was certainly capable of being used for these purposes and was very sharp, but the bokeh was not as pleasing as a tele lens optimised for the purpose - quite strange in fact sometimes.
Dr_O
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,517
- Name
- Dr Ozone
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Also give the tamron 90mm 2.8 consideration - tis an awesome oprit, often compared in equal in outright IQ to the £600 105 Nikon - na d SH can be picked up for £200 !! Leaving you budget towards upgrading the 18 - 135mm
I will consider all the options mentioned for a macro, but what would you upgrade the 18-135 to? I was thinking about trying to swap mine with someome with a steadier hand than me and who has an 18-105VR and would like a bit longer reach. Or apart from the VR, what would I be gaining, if anything?
Nobody have any thoughts on this question? come on folks, don't be shy, say what you think.
Tamron 90mm
Nikon 105mm
sigma 105/150mm
Extension Tubes (manual or kenko af)
Reversing thread ring (turn two lenses together reversed)
Personal opinion - don't bother less than the 100mm as your working distance gets too small.
If you like flies/dragonflies other fast insects, try the 150mm sigma.
Also if you can - borrow the lenses before buying, so you can give them a go yourself. I think most of those lenses above are around the 400 ukp mark - second hand maybe 300?
Nikon 105mm
sigma 105/150mm
Extension Tubes (manual or kenko af)
Reversing thread ring (turn two lenses together reversed)
Personal opinion - don't bother less than the 100mm as your working distance gets too small.
If you like flies/dragonflies other fast insects, try the 150mm sigma.
Also if you can - borrow the lenses before buying, so you can give them a go yourself. I think most of those lenses above are around the 400 ukp mark - second hand maybe 300?
I think I am with you on the matter of working distance, I have asked a local shop if I can try a Tamron 90mm when they get one in.
I used to use the Nikon PK rings when I was doing film so perhaps I can give that some thought. Thanks for the input. ( I still don't know what it was suggested I upgrade my 18-135 to)
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
60mm AF-D.... bargain lens
Hmmm
Well depends what you want...
Something like a portrait lens - 35mm f1.8 nikon (170ukp from jessops)
I tried a samyang 14mm y'day - its not bad around the 250ukp (both of those I believe are new) or a fisheye samyang 8mm. The samyangs are fully manual btw.
If budgets are getting very tight, perhaps look at the m42 adapter (recommend the one with glass) and a selection of older lenses - anywhere between 5ukp and 150ukp.
If you are going to the safari meet on sunday I may be going (depending on weather) and you can try a few of my lenses.
Tokina 11-16mm is great - dropped mine on camera from bag on Wednesday :/
requires a bit of a fix now...Easiest thing is to use the lens you have and see which focal range you use a lot, then try to find a prime at that range to compare shots with. Ease of use and iq etc need to be compared to your current lens(es).
Good luck on the hunt
Hmmm
Well depends what you want...
Something like a portrait lens - 35mm f1.8 nikon (170ukp from jessops)
I tried a samyang 14mm y'day - its not bad around the 250ukp (both of those I believe are new) or a fisheye samyang 8mm. The samyangs are fully manual btw.
If budgets are getting very tight, perhaps look at the m42 adapter (recommend the one with glass) and a selection of older lenses - anywhere between 5ukp and 150ukp.
If you are going to the safari meet on sunday I may be going (depending on weather) and you can try a few of my lenses.
Tokina 11-16mm is great - dropped mine on camera from bag on Wednesday :/
Easiest thing is to use the lens you have and see which focal range you use a lot, then try to find a prime at that range to compare shots with. Ease of use and iq etc need to be compared to your current lens(es).
Good luck on the hunt
I can't make the safari park meet but thanks for the offer anyway
