# Macro lens



## Patriot

Which Macro lens do you guys use to get those cool shots of fish and shrimps?


----------



## Nubster

Tamron 90mm.


----------



## Patriot

Nubster said:


> Tamron 90mm.


How does it compare to a Nikon macro lens if you have one? I would really like a good macro lens Nikon or not. Do you use any tele-converter to get closer shots?


----------



## Nubster

I have not used a Nikkor but from shots I have seen on the internet, they are very close. The Nikkor may be slightly better but is also much more expensive (double or triple the price). Another good option is the Sigma 105mm but it's also about double the Tamron. 

I have also never used a teleconverter. I would like to try some extension tubes though.


----------



## Patriot

I don't need something super expensive as long as i can see the shrimp details clearly. What does the extension tubes do? I never really hear of them.


----------



## Nubster

They create space between the lens and the sensor. The farther away the lens is, the closer the focus, the greater the magnification. The tubes are just empty space so there is no deterioration of image quality. The trade off is that you have to adjust for exposure because the tubes will lesson the light getting in to the camera. You can get cheap tubes that make it so that you have to operate the lens fully manual with no input from the lens. You can get more expensive ones that have contacts so that your camera gets information (metering) from the lens and auto focus. They work very well and are a good option to getting a macro lens. The better tubes usually run a little less than $200 new. The Tamron will cost about $300 used and the other lenses go up from there in price.


----------



## pandjpudge

Tokina 100mm, $500 and works for me. If I had the money at the time I would get the nikkor 105mm. One of nikon's finest lenses

extension tubes help do some macro work without buying a macro lens


----------



## zdnet

The Kenko Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon allows auto-focus. However, in addition to cutting down on the light reaching the camera sensor, extension tube significantly reduces the focusing distance, meaning that you have to move the camera much closer to the object. Extension tube also cuts down on the depth of field causing very shallow focus.

Regarding the Nikon 105 lens, instead of the current generation (Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR), the previous generation (Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D) gives a much sharper image due to the much better control on chromatic aberrations. Here is the graphic comparison.

Current generation (Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR) chromatic aberrations:









Previous generation (Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D) chromatic aberrations:









For the complete reviews , see:

Micro-Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR

Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D

Here is a shot with the previous generation lens (Micro-Nikkor AF 105mm f/2.8 D) on a D90:


----------



## teah

if you have a tele lens, May I suggest a Raynox 250? This photo I took with a cheap Super Takumar 70-200mm lens ($50) and the raynox. The size of the fly is 2/3 of the shrimp.


The fly by Tea.H, on Flickr


The fly by Tea.H, on Flickr


----------



## D3monic

canon 100mm


----------



## NyteBlade

I've heard the Canon 100mm f/2.8 or the newer L one with IS are both very solid choices. Hard to say whether the extra $300 or so for the L designation and IS is worth it, but some of the aquarium photos I've seen with those babies are superb.


----------



## audioaficionado

In the long run it's better to get the more expensive name brand camera lenses (Nikkor, Canon) if you can as they hold their value over time and are generally top quality, but getting the other lenses is good too IMO.


----------



## Bettatail

Tamron 180mm Macro


----------



## Patriot

wow those are some great shots. I like the pictures of the fly.


----------



## Ibn

Choose whatever your wallet can afford or whatever you have around. That Raynox looks interesting and has decent reviews. Might order one to see how it performs with out of camera images. 

Here are some pics from various lenses with and without attachments.

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Adaptall manual focus macro lens (picked up for ~$200 via eBay). 


















Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (not a macro lens...)









Nikon 105mm f/2.8 (non-VR)




































Nikon 55mm f/3.5 micro 









Size of the fw limpet next to tip of a Bic pen to show relative size.









Nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro









Nikon 50mm f/1.4D (another non-macro lens)


















Same lens, but reverse mounted









105mm f/2.8 VR at 1:1









105mm f/2.8 VR at 1:1 with Kenko extension tubes









Baby mysis at ~0.25" 









105mm VR @1:1 + all three Kenko tubes stacked









105mm VR at various magnification



























Samsung Galaxy Nexus (cam phone for kicks  ).


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

teah said:


> if you have a tele lens, May I suggest a Raynox 250? This photo I took with a cheap Super Takumar 70-200mm lens ($50) and the raynox. The size of the fly is 2/3 of the shrimp.
> 
> 
> The fly by Tea.H, on Flickr
> 
> 
> The fly by Tea.H, on Flickr


How does this change the minimum focusing distance of the lens, if at all? I assume it does, shooting a telephoto that far away with that crisp is unfeasible... lol


----------



## teah

Geniusdudekiran said:


> How does this change the minimum focusing distance of the lens, if at all? I assume it does, shooting a telephoto that far away with that crisp is unfeasible... lol


Hi, Raynox helps reduce the minimum focusing distance to around 20~30cm. This was shot at the minimum distance, a manual flash YN 560 from left/right top.

Best thing is, with Raynox, AF still work great. But for best result, I use MF and shift my body back & forth.


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

Nice. I ordered some super duper cheap extension ring set yesterday. I was at a park on Thursday and I saw this guy there for the same reason (photog) and he was getting some sweet shots with a T3i. Macro shots, that is. So I asked him what lens he was using, assuming he was knowledgeable on the subject (lol) and he says, "I don't really know man, but man, it works great. I got these cheap extension rings for like 8 bucks shipped on amazon and they work wonders." I think he must have seen the lightbulb over my head at that point, lol.


----------



## teah

Geniusdudekiran said:


> Nice. I ordered some super duper cheap extension ring set yesterday. I was at a park on Thursday and I saw this guy there for the same reason (photog) and he was getting some sweet shots with a T3i. Macro shots, that is. So I asked him what lens he was using, assuming he was knowledgeable on the subject (lol) and he says, "I don't really know man, but man, it works great. I got these cheap extension rings for like 8 bucks shipped on amazon and they work wonders." *I think he must have seen the lightbulb over my head at that point, lol*.


LMAO @ the bolds...

Yes, I tried the extension tube too, I even tried reversed lens (hand held). It is no doubt best bang for the buck. But the view finder become too dark for me to see at f8, I that's why I bought this Raynox, and it works like a charm for me.


----------



## Geniusdudekiran

Ah, I see. You try to use the widest aperture in this case, correct? At the expense of proper depth of field?


----------



## teah

Geniusdudekiran said:


> Ah, I see. You try to use the widest aperture in this case, correct? At the expense of proper depth of field?


When using the tube, the DOF becomes extremely shallow, so I have to use f8+. By doing so, the light entering the camera and the view finder is very little, hence I got dark view finder and can't see much to have the correct focus.

That's why I moved to raynox. The view finder is still very bright and clear, plus auto focus work and raynox's glass is very good, doesn't reduce any image quality 

P/S: your tank in the sig is super!!! I had one mini too, not ADA of course, but it died haha...
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/tank-journals/136220-fishing-spot-hidden-treasure-mini-24l.html


----------



## mcqueenesq

audioaficionado said:


> In the long run it's better to get the more expensive name brand camera lenses (Nikkor, Canon) if you can as they hold their value over time and are generally top quality, but getting the other lenses is good too IMO.



+1. I've been able to sell Nikon lenses that I bought used for the same price years later. 

The Nikon Nikkor 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro is next on my wish list.


----------



## Ibn

Picked up a Raynox for testing purposes, but lacking lenses to test it on (most of my lenses are 77mm). I'll post up some pictures in another thread to go over my take of the lens.


----------



## lauraleellbp

Would someone run down the differences between the Canon 60 mm vs 100 mm lenses?

I'm looking at getting nice indoor/lightbox shots of my geckos in addition to aquarium photos, and am trying to figure out if spending 2x for the 100 mm is really justified for my DSLR Newb self...


----------



## audioaficionado

The 100 mm will give you more working distance from the critters you are trying to photograph. Either one would work, but the extra distance will help to not spook the critter and make it an easier process.


----------



## lauraleellbp

But that's a disadvantage if I'm trying to take pics from just a few feet, isn't it?

The 100 mm is better if you're working outside with wild animals, but the 60 mm might be a better choice for inside work with small pets (like geckos)?


----------



## audioaficionado

Depending on what you are shooting, but we're talking inches, not feet. I prefer the longer focal length as the greater working distance (inches) also keeps the lens from overshadowing the object and gives you better natural lighting in some situations.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/index.htm#50

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/index.htm#100


----------



## Nubster

lauraleellbp said:


> But that's a disadvantage if I'm trying to take pics from just a few feet, isn't it?
> 
> The 100 mm is better if you're working outside with wild animals, but the 60 mm might be a better choice for inside work with small pets (like geckos)?


You'll get the same image, you are just a little further away from the subject with the 100mm. A big advantage to that is a lot of critters get spooked if you get too close. If you aren't concerned about that, the 60mm will work just fine.


----------



## audioaficionado

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/60mm-macro.htm
Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro


> This Canon 60mm macro is optically spectacular. It works well and has no downsides, other than being only 60mm and only working on the 1.6x sensor cameras.
> 
> If you really want to use this for macro, for only about $80 more the Canon 100mm macro is a much better choice. The 100mm gives you both more working room and a more natural perspective. Unless you're only using this on a copystand, you'll thank me for getting the 100mm macro for macro use.
> 
> This 60mm macro is ideal if you plan to use it for general photography and only on the smaller sensor cameras. If you plan to do a lot of macro, the 100mm makes it much more convenient. If you think you may eventually get a 1D or 5D, only the 100mm (and old 50mm macro) work on film and 1.3x and full-frame digital cameras.


----------



## TickleMyElmo

lauraleellbp said:


> But that's a disadvantage if I'm trying to take pics from just a few feet, isn't it?
> 
> The 100 mm is better if you're working outside with wild animals, but the 60 mm might be a better choice for inside work with small pets (like geckos)?


Depends just how tame your geckos are.

Allow me to explain this in laymans terms....

With the 60mm Canon Macro, to get 1:1 Magnification (True macro, as in the really small becomes really big), the subject, which in this case would be your geckos,....would have to be *3 1/2 inches* from the front glass of the lens....anything farther than 3 1/2 inches away becomes simply close up but not macro. 


With the 100mm Canon Macro, the geckos can be *6 inches* from the front glass of the lens and still get 1:1 magnication (macro). Anything farther away than 6 inches will result in simply close up images, but not macro.




So the question becomes, *if you desire macro pictures...can you get the front of your lens within 3 and half inches of your geckos?*

Most geckos that will be a hell no, but it really depends on what type of geckos and how tame/hand holdable/non-easily-spooked they are...


----------



## lauraleellbp

TickleMyElmo said:


> Depends just how tame your geckos are.
> 
> Allow me to explain this in laymans terms....
> 
> With the 60mm Canon Macro, to get 1:1 Magnification (True macro, as in the really small becomes really big), the subject, which in this case would be your geckos,....would have to be *3 1/2 inches* from the front glass of the lens....anything farther than 3 1/2 inches away becomes simply close up but not macro.
> 
> 
> With the 100mm Canon Macro, the geckos can be *6 inches* from the front glass of the lens and still get 1:1 magnication (macro). Anything farther away than 6 inches will result in simply close up images, but not macro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the question becomes, *if you desire macro pictures...can you get the front of your lens within 3 and half inches of your geckos?*
> 
> Most geckos that will be a hell no, but it really depends on what type of geckos and how tame/hand holdable/non-easily-spooked they are...


OK that explanation helped, thanks.

It's sounding to me like since my geckos are for the most part very tame, the 60mm would work. Though the 100mm is much better.

Where are you finding lenses that are only $50 different in price, though? From what I'm seeing, the 60mm runs $400-$500 whereas the 100mm is up around $1000? That's a pretty big difference!


----------



## TickleMyElmo

lauraleellbp said:


> OK that explanation helped, thanks.
> 
> It's sounding to me like since my geckos are for the most part very tame, the 60mm would work. Though the 100mm is much better.
> 
> Where are you finding lenses that are only $50 different in price, though? From what I'm seeing, the 60mm runs $400-$500 whereas the 100mm is up around $1000? That's a pretty big difference!


The $1,000 100mm Macro is likely the "L" version, but the regular version is $599, as shown here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html

The difference is that the L version is better built, weather sealed, has IS, but really for non pro use and what you need it for the regular $599 version will be perfectly fine, but so long as you can get close like you said, the 60mm will do just fine.


----------



## NyteBlade

Having the IS on the Macro Lens is a pretty big feature though when you're not using a tripod (or so I've heard..)


----------



## TickleMyElmo

NyteBlade said:


> Having the IS on the Macro Lens is a pretty big feature though when you're not using a tripod (or so I've heard..)


IS is great if your using it as a portrait lens for far away subjects, but its nearly useless at 1:1 macro magnification. Most people just turn it off when at macro magnification.


----------



## youjettisonme

This video was shot with a Nikkor 85/d5100.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyPu_p66YDU&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Max Kenji

I just got a Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 Macro Lens 
Pretty good for the price.
The body feel a little bit cheap/plastic build though.
Here is the pic taken with my Canon EOS 1000D.


----------



## lauraleellbp

How much, if you don't mind my asking?


----------



## Max Kenji

I got mine from Digitalrev for $389.
But it was shipped from Hongkong lol. But so far it's working very well.
Anw I'm not gonna order from that site again. This might be a refurbished.


----------



## FinalJenemba

Ummm... I just use an old Ai Nikkor 55mm 3.5 Micro, it has a serial # carved into the side of it by some random hippy in the 70's, cost me $75. Seems to work fine lol


----------



## xenxes

Benibachi said:


> I got mine from Digitalrev for $389.
> But it was shipped from Hongkong lol. But so far it's working very well.
> Anw I'm not gonna order from that site again. This might be a refurbished.


That's a great price, $499 on amazon :/ well 449 after rebate

So which lens is the sweet spot, Tamron 90 (read a couple here used it)? 

I was still holding out for the $800-900 canon 100mm with IS.


----------



## NyteBlade

TickleMyElmo said:


> IS is great if your using it as a portrait lens for far away subjects, but its nearly useless at 1:1 macro magnification. Most people just turn it off when at macro magnification.


Is this because when shooting macro shots you almost always use a tripod? I assume even with the IS, it's impossible to take a good macro shoot while hand-holding the camera? Or am I entirely off base?


----------



## FinalJenemba

NyteBlade said:


> Is this because when shooting macro shots you almost always use a tripod? I assume even with the IS, it's impossible to take a good macro shoot while hand-holding the camera? Or am I entirely off base?


IS is useless because at that magnification even a small vibration moves your frame so much the IS couldn't compensate. On the other hand you can hand hold macro shots but you generally need to use a pretty high ISO. All 3 of the shots I posted above were hand held.


----------



## Nubster

xenxes said:


> That's a great price, $499 on amazon :/ well 449 after rebate
> 
> So which lens is the sweet spot, Tamron 90 (read a couple here used it)?
> 
> I was still holding out for the $800-900 canon 100mm with IS.


I still say that the Tamron 90mm is the best bang for the buck. Used copies can be found pretty easily for around $300. They aren't highend Canon/Nikon but they can certainly hold their own for a fraction of the price.


----------



## zdnet

NyteBlade said:


> Is this because when shooting macro shots you almost always use a tripod? I assume even with the IS, it's impossible to take a good macro shoot while hand-holding the camera? Or am I entirely off base?


Image stabilization (IS in Canon, VR in Nikon) is not required to have sharp macro shot. It depends on the shutter speed. When it is at or above 1/lens_focal_length (e.g. 1/60 sec for a 60 mm lens), image stabilization does not add anything to image sharpness.


----------



## Patriot

I just purchased the Vivitar 70-210mm 3.5 Macro lens. I was told that it was a great lens and one of the better manual focus older lens. I can't wait for it to arrive in the mail to try it out


----------



## alfalfa

lauraleellbp said:


> But that's a disadvantage if I'm trying to take pics from just a few feet, isn't it?
> 
> The 100 mm is better if you're working outside with wild animals, but the 60 mm might be a better choice for inside work with small pets (like geckos)?


If I was trying to take a macro photo of a wild animal I'd probably want something like 10000mm.  Some big differences between macro and normal lenses are the reproduction ratio and working distances. Same focal length - different applications. I could take a picture of my brother from 10 feet away. But to capture his iris with glorious macro detail I'd have to be very close to his face. But as far as getting close, using a regular lens to move in close to a subject does not necessarily mean it a macro lens or a macro photograph, even if it earns a goofy "Golden Star Award for Superb Macro Photograph!" on flickr. Macro is different and it often requires a macro lens.

I had a 60mm macro lens. I had a clear/UV filter of some sort over the front to protect it. I actually bumped into part of a flower (stamen) when I was trying to focus on something inside of it. 

I later tried a 105mm macro for greater working distance. That allowed me to be a foot away. It meant I wouldn't bump into anything but it also meant it was still too close to most critters. It seems to be ok for a fish tank but the fish definitely notice it and act differently. I haven't put too much effort into it, but they'd probably get used to the lens being that close quicker than how long it took to get used to my face.


----------



## alfalfa

Nubster said:


> I still say that the Tamron 90mm is the best bang for the buck. Used copies can be found pretty easily for around $300. They aren't highend Canon/Nikon but they can certainly hold their own for a fraction of the price.


I've heard the same thing over and over for a long time, too. That Tamron 90mm is supposed to be a great buy.


----------



## reefdive

Lots of great info here . Anyone ever noticed if the noises every scared the fish or shrimp ? I had a Nikkor 105 D and it was just plain noisy . Might be good for Frogs and reptile's though as they would turn to look at it ( or run away ? )


----------



## alfalfa

I had the 60 D and still have the 105 D. I have briefly tried a 105 AF-S as a regular lens and loved the AF-S yet I never tried AF-S for macro. As far as the AF version goes, I *never* use AF for macro. Macro is easier and faster in manual focus. If you don't use a tripod (with or without rails) and turning the ring by hand is too tricky, set the focus within range manually and just lean slightly back and forth to get it just right.


----------



## toofazt

Nikon D40X, Sigma 150mm Macro lens, Sigma EF-500 Super flash mounted above tank, all shot freehand. Gives you that extra working distance so it works great with bugs too; nobody likes getting too close to spiders! More pics here: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/shrimp-other-invertebrates/164889-my-shrimp-pics.html










Little baby Cherry


----------



## synaethetic

toofazt said:


> Nikon D40X, Sigma 150mm Macro lens, Sigma EF-500 Super flash mounted above tank, all shot freehand. Gives you that extra working distance so it works great with bugs too; nobody likes getting too close to spiders! More pics here: http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/shrimp-other-invertebrates/164889-my-shrimp-pics.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little baby Cherry


Amazing photos!


----------



## Patriot

For those using a flash mounted above the tank my you show your set so we can learn how to do it? Thank for all the great photos.


----------



## toofazt

synaethetic said:


> Amazing photos!


Thanks!


Patriot100% said:


> For those using a flash mounted above the tank my you show your set so we can learn how to do it? Thank for all the great photos.


I either mount the flash on a tripod or set it directly on the tank (fluval edge) with one of those collapsible diffusers installed.


----------



## reefdive

I am going to stick my neck out and say lighting is 90% of what is needed to get those great closeup shots . And even multiple lights or flash's . Also taking the picture in the Aquarium will alway be more difficult than a small studio setup . Good natural light from the right direction and fill flash from other angles can give the subject amazing detail . Or all studio light can work as well depend's on what you have available . I know what needs to be done but doing it is another realm of self motivation altogether  . A lense can only record what it see's . I love to get new photo equipement but it is lighting equipement we should be getting and the knowledge to use it .


----------



## Mr. Appleton

Agreed with Reefdive. Especially with macro photography where the depth-of-field becomes vanishingly small it's critical that you bring the light to allow you stop down your lens to attain the depth that you need to have the shrimp/fish/whatever in complete focus. 

As for setup, I've found that you can either lay the flash flat directly on the glass top of the aquarium (if you have one) with the bounce card pulled out. That'll let you bounce the flash down. I've also been able to bend the flash and balance it over the edge of the aquarium. 

Overall, I've found that lighting will improve your images by leaps and bounds once you have the basic lenses covered. It's a worthwhile to learn skill!


----------



## Patriot

I finally got my vivitar 70-210mm 3.5 lens I will say that I'm very pleased with the results that I got with it. The bokeh is very smooth and creamy in both macro mode and not. I feature I like about this lens is the macro mode. I want to using it in brighter light to get better results, I got off of work when the sun start setting so bumped up the ISO. I can't wait until the weekend when I'm free. I don't have any shrimp or fish to show off the macro ability though


----------

