Which 100mm+ macro for Nikon (& do teleconverters work well with a macro lens)

Son_of_Thor

Son_of_Thor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,106
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
I've currently got two options for close up work, either my 200-500 at minimum focus distance or there abouts or an 85mm 1.8 with extension tubes. I'm finding the MFD on the 200-500 quite limiting as I'd like to be a lot closer and the 85mm with the extension tubes not long enough for close up work out and about so I'm thinking about purchasing a dedicated macro lens. It seems that 100mm+ is where is need to be for FF macro work, but which option to go for? OS/VR may come in useful so I've pretty much discounted the Tokina AT-X M100 AF PRO D. I do have a Nikon TC-14E III teleconverter, but that is hard work on the 200-500 when hand-holding (weight/stability issues). I could use a tripod with it, but find that slows me down too much for this sort of shooting. The 85mm is not teleconverter compatible. That leaves the following 105mm macro lenses:
  • Sigma MACRO 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
  • Nikon AF-S VR Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
Is the Nikon worth double the price of the Sigma? Is 105mm going to be enough on FF? Will the Nikon 1.4x Teleconverter work well with the Nikon 105mm or should I look at a longer dedicated macro lens such as the Sigma APO MACRO 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM, which although a lot more expensive than the Sigma 105mm is similar money to the Nikon 105mm new. Or should I plan to buy a second crop body as I was looking at one for wildlife shooting anyway? Are there any obvious options that I've missed?

Should have mentioned, I'm primarily interested in shooting damsel/dragonflies and butterflies/moths, the odd ladybird and the like and can't always get right up close to them.

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated! :)
 
Last edited:
Son_of_Thor said:
Which 100mm+ macro for Nikon
Click to expand...
The 105 ƒ 2,8 macro is a little wonder!
The 200 mm ƒ2 macro is also a very groovy
tool you should investigate.
Son_of_Thor said:
do teleconverters work well with a macro lens!
Click to expand...
I use mine, 105mm, mainly for macro works
but also for portrait and street photography.

A dedicated macro lens is nothing other than
a quality lens that can focus MUCH closer.

I never used it with anything else than exten-
sion tubes but I don't know if there should be
any problem mounting it to a converter.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
The 105 ƒ 2,8 macro is a little wonder!
The 200 mm ƒ2 macro is also a very groovy
tool you should investigate.

I use mine, 105mm, mainly for macro works
but also for portrait and street photography.

A dedicated macro lens is nothing other than
a quality lens that can focus MUCH closer.

I never used it with anything else than exten-
sion tubes but I don't know if there should be
any problem mounting it to a converter.
Click to expand...

Thanks Daniel,

Having had a quick look at the 200mm it's certainly out of budget new, but might be an option used if I can find one! I'm going to try and borrow a 105mm first to see how I get on... That way I'll get to give it a try with the 1.4x/2x teleconverters and extension tubes
 
Last edited:
I use the Sigma 105mm OS HSM on the D750 and am very happy with it, I can't see how the Nikon is worth nearly double tbh.

Few examples:-

This guy was about 4-5mm in length and 2mm wide, this is nearly a 100% crop to give an idea of how well it crops
Breakfast by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_4594-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

This fella was about 10mm in length
DSC_4145-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_3836-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_9588 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Son_of_Thor said:
It seems that 100mm+ is where is need to be for FF macro work.... Is 105mm going to be enough on FF?
Click to expand...
I think you may be labouring under a misapprehension regarding sensor sizes and focal lengths. Macro isn't like ordinary photography and the 'crop factor' doesn't apply in the same way.

A "true" macro lens such as the 105mm ones you've been looking at offers a 1:1 magnification. This means that, when you're at the minimum focusing distance, you can fill the frame with an object the same size as the sensor. For a DX camera that's an object measuring 24x16mm; for an FX camera it's 36x24mm. But both are 1:1 magnification.

Where the focal length comes into it us that it affects the minimum focusing distance at which you achieve 1:1. A focal length of around 100mm usually gives you a MFD of about 30cm; for a shorter macro such as a 60mm focal length the MFD will be shorter, maybe 20cm; and with a longer focal length of say 150-180mm the MFD may be around 40-45cm. But it's important to remember that in each case the magnification is the same, 1:1, and that's independent of the sensor size.

A longer focal length doesn't give you more magnification, and it isn't inherently more suitable for an FX camera. It just gives you a bigger MFD, which may be useful if you're trying to photograph skittish insects.
 
StewartR said:
I think you may be labouring under a misapprehension regarding sensor sizes and focal lengths. Macro isn't like ordinary photography and the 'crop factor' doesn't apply in the same way.

A "true" macro lens such as the 105mm ones you've been looking at offers a 1:1 magnification. This means that, when you're at the minimum focusing distance, you can fill the frame with an object the same size as the sensor. For a DX camera that's an object measuring 24x16mm; for an FX camera it's 36x24mm. But both are 1:1 magnification.

Where the focal length comes into it us that it affects the minimum focusing distance at which you achieve 1:1. A focal length of around 100mm usually gives you a MFD of about 30cm; for a shorter macro such as a 60mm focal length the MFD will be shorter, maybe 20cm; and with a longer focal length of say 150-180mm the MFD may be around 40-45cm. But it's important to remember that in each case the magnification is the same, 1:1, and that's independent of the sensor size.

A longer focal length doesn't give you more magnification, and it isn't inherently more suitable for an FX camera. It just gives you a bigger MFD, which may be useful if you're trying to photograph skittish insects.
Click to expand...


Edit: Ignore, I misread your post ;)
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I use the Sigma 105mm OS HSM on the D750 and am very happy with it, I can't see how the Nikon is worth nearly double tbh.

Few examples:-

This guy was about 4-5mm in length and 2mm wide, this is nearly a 100% crop to give an idea of how well it crops
Breakfast by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_4594-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

This fella was about 10mm in length
DSC_4145-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_3836-Edit by TDG-77, on Flickr

DSC_9588 by TDG-77, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Some excellent work there sir! One aspect I hadn't really considered was how well the output might crop so thanks for that...

I'm not sure that the Nikon is worth double the price of the Sigma. I'd most likely be looking for a used Nikon or new Sigma. Not sure if the stabilisation is similar/better on the Nikon. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on a Nikon macro at the weekend...
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
I think you may be labouring under a misapprehension regarding sensor sizes and focal lengths. Macro isn't like ordinary photography and the 'crop factor' doesn't apply in the same way.

A "true" macro lens such as the 105mm ones you've been looking at offers a 1:1 magnification. This means that, when you're at the minimum focusing distance, you can fill the frame with an object the same size as the sensor. For a DX camera that's an object measuring 24x16mm; for an FX camera it's 36x24mm. But both are 1:1 magnification.

Where the focal length comes into it us that it affects the minimum focusing distance at which you achieve 1:1. A focal length of around 100mm usually gives you a MFD of about 30cm; for a shorter macro such as a 60mm focal length the MFD will be shorter, maybe 20cm; and with a longer focal length of say 150-180mm the MFD may be around 40-45cm. But it's important to remember that in each case the magnification is the same, 1:1, and that's independent of the sensor size.

A longer focal length doesn't give you more magnification, and it isn't inherently more suitable for an FX camera. It just gives you a bigger MFD, which may be useful if you're trying to photograph skittish insects.
Click to expand...

Stewart,

Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me, makes sense...

So in that case, am I correct in saying that extension tubes on a 1:1 macro lens will give greater than 1:1 magnification by reducing the MFD thus allowing you to get closer and that a teleconverter on a 1:1 macro lens will give greater than 1:1 magnification by retaining the same MFD and magnifying what the lens produces?
 
Son_of_Thor said:
Some excellent work there sir! One aspect I hadn't really considered was how well the output might crop so thanks for that...

I'm not sure that the Nikon is worth double the price of the Sigma. I'd most likely be looking for a used Nikon or new Sigma. Not sure if the stabilisation is similar/better on the Nikon. I'm going to see if I can get my hands on a Nikon macro at the weekend...
Click to expand...
Thanks. If you do get to try both I'd be interested in your thoughts as to how much difference there is (y)
 
StewartR said:
IMacro isn't like ordinary photography and the 'crop factor' doesn't apply in the same way.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have clarified this a bit.

Imagine you photography the same subject with the same macro lens at 1:1 magnification using a DX camera and an FX camera. The photo from the DX camera will include an area of the subject which is 24x16mm, and the photo from the FX camera will include an area of the subject which is 36x24mm, So in that respect the DX photo is essentially a crop from the FX photo, which is what we're used to.

However, what's different is that the concept of equivalent focal lengths breaks down. We're used to the notion that a 150mm lens on a FX camera gives you the same image as a 100mm lens on a DX camera. But in macro photography that doesn't work; a 150mm lens doesn't give you a magnified image compared to a 100mm lens.
 
Son_of_Thor said:
So in that case, am I correct in saying that extension tubes on a 1:1 macro lens will give greater than 1:1 magnification by reducing the MFD thus allowing you to get closer....
Click to expand...
Yes. Though not much greater than 1:1.
Son_of_Thor said:
.... and that a teleconverter on a 1:1 macro lens will give greater than 1:1 magnification by retaining the same MFD and magnifying what the lens produces?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
It's maybe worth mentioning that the Minimum Focusing Distance (MFD) is always measured from the sensor and is the figure quoted by most manufacturers. With macro though, this isn't very helpful because the length of the camera and lens take a big chunk out of it when you're close. The important number is the Minimum Working Distance (MWD) measured from the front of the lens and you'll find that in some lens reviews. Most lenses of the same focal length have similar MWDs at same magnification, but it's not a given.
 
StewartR said:
Perhaps I should have clarified this a bit.

Imagine you photography the same subject with the same macro lens at 1:1 magnification using a DX camera and an FX camera. The photo from the DX camera will include an area of the subject which is 24x16mm, and the photo from the FX camera will include an area of the subject which is 36x24mm, So in that respect the DX photo is essentially a crop from the FX photo, which is what we're used to.

However, what's different is that the concept of equivalent focal lengths breaks down. We're used to the notion that a 150mm lens on a FX camera gives you the same image as a 100mm lens on a DX camera. But in macro photography that doesn't work; a 150mm lens doesn't give you a magnified image compared to a 100mm lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the further clarification - it's been an education! :)
 
HoppyUK said:
It's maybe worth mentioning that the Minimum Focusing Distance (MFD) is always measured from the sensor and is the figure quoted by most manufacturers. With macro though, this isn't very helpful because the length of the camera and lens take a big chunk out of it when you're close. The important number is the Minimum Working Distance (MWD) measured from the front of the lens and you'll find that in some lens reviews. Most lenses of the same focal length have similar MWDs at same magnification, but it's not a given.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's certainly worth mentioning as I wasn't aware of it! With anything other than close up work I've never really had to consider exactly where MFD is measured from...
 
Is the Nikon better than the Sigma? Yes. Is it worth twice as much? Probably not! For nervous insects a longer option could be a better bet. IMO&E, VR/OS/OIS etc. are of limited use in macro work BUT are worth having for other uses to which a 100mm lens is well suited.
 
Nod said:
Is the Nikon better than the Sigma? Yes. Is it worth twice as much? Probably not! For nervous insects a longer option could be a better bet. IMO&E, VR/OS/OIS etc. are of limited use in macro work BUT are worth having for other uses to which a 100mm lens is well suited.
Click to expand...

Nod, thanks for the input... I'm going to see what I can borrow to try this out for myself as there's no substitute really!
 
Very true!
 
So I finally managed to borrow a Nikon AF-S 105mm 2.8 VR Micro over the weekend and gave it a try with my 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. This makes a huge difference to the Minimum Working Distance with skittish subjects and I think is the way to go for me given that I already have the TC's. Also AF seems to work fine with the 1.4x on. It's sketchy at best with the 2x, but that seems to be due to the effective maximum aperture when working close up. Now all I need to do is find a decent example for reasonable money!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top