nikonian - for insects I'll go either for 105 or 200 micro just to get working distance
what is your favorite focal length for prime lens???(77 posts) (25 voices)
thanks adamz. but i am just curious though. is there anybody who own them both? i know there are quite a few. why?
mb suggested to get 60 afs and that was why i asked this question. Now i am saving up for 105 VR
@ adamz : F1.4 is 2 stops faster than F2.8. But I agree.. the new 24-70 is replacing primes for many people.
I think the question of an alternative for the 24-70 is a whole topic in its self!!
indeed hearty, my mistake - f1.4 to f2.0 - one stop and f2.0 to f2.8 - second stop
I used to think the 50mm f1.4 was the best for my D200, then I got a D700. I was worried that my favorite lens would lose out in FX...not to worry - it quickly won the favorite spot. My #2 lens is a manual focus 24mm f.2.
Ever notice how a lens will be very sharp on one camera and so-so on another? Manufacturing tollerences perhaps?
a 105mm is nice, it has a very short depth of field (you'll shoot a lot of f22s). I used one in west Texas and wished for a much longer lens when I ran across a large scorpion...an 8" scorpion can make you wish for a 300mm macro.
@snaketail - I have the 24 f/2 AIS myself, that thing is crazy contrasty, and pretty sharp, though my 35 f/2 is better on the second front. For your scorpion case, i either put a 2X teleconverter on my 105mm Micro, or put my PN-11 extension tube on my 300mm to get good magnification from a bit further away.
Did some one say scorpion?
Sigma 150mm Macro did come in handy that day!
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro is one of the best lenses on the market, and it can be used with teleconverters so you could easily have great 105 and also great 180 in one lens with TC-17 for example. The thing is it will look ridiculous and fill uncomfortable on yours D40 and will give you painful strains in your hands if you intend to use it for extended time, and we are talking about 1000$ lens put on 200$ body, right?
I thought I could save you couple of bucks without sacrificing much on image quality and usability, but if you are really in to shooting wild and vigorous living creatures, and if you are in spending serious money for ultimate quality only achievable by primes then your next lens is an obvious choice, 5000$ 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S (and 510 with TC-17 that I already mentioned). Or you can save a couple of bucks by going for 1400$ 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S, only then you can use TC-14 otherwise it will not autofocus so the previous lens is better choice don’t you think?
And if you still need something less long to shoot not so vigorous insects, coins, clocks or other small things or people or interiors you can decide to give this great, small, beautiful and not so expensive 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S a try.
For even wider lens there are currently not so many prime choices except maybe to go for 1800$ 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S, not a real prime but close enough for most professionals.
All in all you will have to spend around 5000 to 8000 US dollars on lens to get the best from your 200$ D40 camera.
Or maybe you can seriously reconsider your needs and go for 200$ 55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX or a bit better 550$ 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR with Kenko extension rings and get just right lens for insects, 200$ AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G from prime image quality and you will have very dissent shoots and loads of fun with your D40 for much less money spent in vain.
But we could go on like this all day long, the decision must be yours.
@Flea - DXO or PS works to some extents but do ruin IQ, and I don’t like that.
Heartyfisher mentions how the term "normal" lens came about. Technically, he is incorrect. The "normal" lens is the lens that on any given camera produces an angle of view most similar to the human eye (the scene "seen" by the camera is the same size as seen by the eye -- don't get too caught up in the actual angle of view terminology). If I can recall back 30 years or so when I taught some photography, for a 35mm SLR camera, a true normal lens was a 58mm lens. These days, for DX cameras, a 35mm is considered the normal lens.
snaketail, you said , i am gonna use f22 A LOT?? wowww, f22?? then the shutter speed would be very slow then?
then I guess tripod is a must.
Btw, since I dont own macro lens yet, IS IT EASY TO CAPTURE SHOTS OF INSECTS WITH 105 FOCAL LENGTH?
is it too short? do i need like 200 or 180 or 150mm at least?
seriously, I ve heard lot of people use 105mm VR to capture insects shots. and they said that this is like the MOST versatile prime lens and thats why I am saving up for it. but your post really makes me think twice.
this lens is expensive in the market (since nikon raise the price) , so i just want to make sure if i bought, i use it a lot.
105 on a D700. An incredible combination!
wow, I dont even know that d40 is only 200 bucks now.LOL. i bought mine for 500 bucks with 18-55 (kit lens).
Mb, i really enjoy your post and i really want to know more about your thoughts. seriously.
okay, let me tell you what i think. first of all, i dont mind if 105vr looks too big or being too heavy for my d40. I am young and i dont think weight will bother me. as matter of fact, I really want to feel what is it like to carry heavy lens all day, LOL.
Forget about 300 afs, i dont have that much money to blow and you are right, even 105mm vr price currently already killed me. IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS SO THAT I CAN SAVE MONEY, oh boy, i always welcome those. Keep them coming. i am not made of money, you know esp at this current economy.
But i just do not want to save money and get wrong gear and ended up buying twice. please help me save money man. i am not as experienced as you and i will take your advice really.
hey, this is what i really want to know, please answer it.
YOU MAKE IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH 60 AFS CAN TAKE INSECT PICS. CAN I REALLY DO IT? IS IT TOO SHORT OF FOCAL LENGTH FOR 1:1 MAGNIFICATION?
AND FOR 105, IS IT GOOD ENOUGH FOCAL LENGTH FOR INSECTS? YOU MAKE IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH THIS FOCAL LENGTH IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND I SHOULD JUST SAVE MONEY AND GO FOR 60 OR SPEND TOP DOLLARS FOR LONGER FOCAL LENGTH LENS. i plan to snap flowers, any small things, and ofcourse insects. so should i opt for 105 or 60?
i will just get 60 if you think 105 is too much. but can i get insect shots with 60 afs?
some reviews said that with 60 , i would be like in front of the bug face.
but this is what you said
"if you still need something less long to shoot not so vigorous insects, coins, clocks or other small things or people or interiors you can decide to give this great, small, beautiful and not so expensive 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S a try"
you said "NOT SO VIGOROUS" insects. so could you please explain lil bit deeper. thanks so much man.
I just got back from shooting with my D70 and the sigma 1.4 30mm. I like the balance of this set up for street photography.
"...IS IT TOO SHORT OF FOCAL LENGTH FOR 1:1 MAGNIFICATION?..."
in digital ages saying that a lens has a 1:1 magnification is a little bit obsolete, as You should say for what body, as d3x and d3 and d40 has different sensor density, therefore in some circumstances I can use my 70-200 as a true macro lens, simply this what determines if a shot is a macro shot or not is the final outcome
I have a few favorite primes, depending on the situation...
Nikkor 85mm/1.4 Ai-S (a hand me down from my dad since he has two...) - I absolutely adore this lens, that's it.
Nikkor UD 20mm/3.5 Ai'd, modified to focus down to 3 and a half inches - A custom job my dad had done in the late 70s, only 3 or 4 such modified lenses are in existence.
and then my wonderful old Non-Ai Micro Nikkor 55mm/3.5, I just like the way it draws better than the 50mm/1.4 Ai
@heartyfisher - unless there was glass between you and that thing, you are far braver than I am.
>>> Nikonian wrote: Now here is the thing, do you think its wrong to get 105 and 60 altogether (since both of them are macro)? is it just a waste of money? <<<
My opinion is that you should just get the 105VR for your macro work, it gives you greater working distance to the subject at a given magnification and it can also be used for portrait photography. Save yourself the money on the Micro 60 and get another non Micro Prime if so desired.
Btw the statement that the 105 has a shallower DOF than the 60 or any other smaller focal length lens is only partially correct. In terms of Macro / Close-up work it is not correct because the DOF will be the same at a given Magnification of a subject no matter what the focal length is.
Furthermore a small aperture of f/22 is also recommended against since you loose sharpness due to diffraction. On a DX camera I would say f/16 or below but others might disagree with that value.
More details on diffraction can be found here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
Here a stacked Macro with the Micro 105VR on a D300 (arachnophobics better don't look):
@panamon - I agree f/16 is really the max you want to use, and even then I'd go with f/11 unless you really need the extra depth, as you tend to start seeing some loss of quality already at f/16.
thanks man, thats what i need to know. i will keep this in mind. better go for the best or not at all. I see.
i will keep saving up for 105VR and skip that 60 afs micro.
Working distance approximations only I dont remember the exact distances
Nikkor AFS 60 micro : 50 mm
Nikkor AFS 105 VR micro : 150 mm
Sigma 150 macro : 195 mm
New Tamron 60 F2.0 DX : 100 mm
Tamron 90mm F2.8 : 100 mm
Sigma 70 macro : 70 mm
@ tai : The scorpion was not in a tank.. it was on a table near the edge so I assumed it wont be jumping the gap. and my sigma 150 has a nice working distance from the beast. anyway I love these animals. (did zoology so I have handled some weird creatures!)
I wilI will try to clarify some thingies.
1:1 magnification is always the same no matter the sensor size, and it means that 1 inch of subject will be 1 inch on sensor plane, thingy is 1 inch fills much more on DX sensor then on FX.
1:1 magnification means that the subject is exactly 4 times lens focal length from sensor plane, so if you want same 1:1 image of an insect size your camera BACK should have to be 240mm away for 60mm or 420mm for 105mm and that is an advantage. This also means that DOF is exactly the same for the same image size no matter the lens.
Some of the best insect shots in film era were made by using 105mm lenses, but on DX 60mm gives you 90mm equivalent so it is not much of a difference. This image bellow was taken on 35mm film camera using Micro Nikon 60mm AF, you would have 50% larger image on DX, and so it is doable for not so vigorous insects (this one was just laying there waiting to be shot).
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro is great lens (60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro is not much behind though), it is great on DX and great on FX if you go for it in the future, so don’t get me wrong. Please consider buying TC-17 for it, it will give you even greater flexibility and usability. For some reason I understood that you want to go for all primes setup, good choice but expensive, if you need something else for everyday shooting, (when you are not shooting your favorite exoskeleton subjects) 16-85 would be very good choice IMHO.
mb, you should have put this in the PAD thread! Wonderful shot.
Am I the only one here who uses long tele primes?
gentoo - so far probably yes, I'm still saving for my 300/2.8vr - and unfortunately it will take me some more time :( (or maybe nikon will release 300/4 vr before)
You must log in to post.