An example LOL.
Thoughts on Macro Lenses
(90 posts) (39 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
By itself the 18-200mm is not going to give you decent macro results
In the beginning,I used a Canon 500D achromatic diopter on this lens,but with poor results my 18-200mm was just too soft.I then tried the 500D on a 70-300mm with step down ring with better results,but I still wanted more!!Sooner or later if you love macro,a dedicated lens is a must have ;>)
Posted 1 year ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Thanks for moving it here, I didn't know whether it fell into a macro issue or a color management issue, but I guess macro it is.rschnaible, no offense taken, sorry I mistook it as it was.
I'll try to find the shots I made that had similar color problems as your shot and I'll post it to see what other members think.
I also need to learn how to edit my shots, I had been busy but I'm free now so I'll take a look at luminance and saturation to coax out some of that color where it should have been.
I had exactly the same effect on a red flower, I hate myself now for having deleted it.
Would be interesting to know if anyone knows the cause and how to avoid it.Jürgen
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Juerjen....my results with Nikon jpeg on anything red have been abysmal.I always shoot RAW now ,but if I didn't shoot RAW,I would definitely do so on anything bright red!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
No one mentioned slide and negative copying with a 60mm macro. This was a huge surprise discovery for me. Like everyone else here, I'll bet, I also have a huge film archive and can't afford a drum scanner. Well if you happen to have a 60mm macro (w/62mm front thread) laying around you can get a Bower Digital Duplicator for under $60 and shoot your slides and negs with your magnificent Nikon digital camera.
http://www.amazon.com/Slide-Copier-Nikon-MicroFiber-Cleaning/dp/B002Q6TVQA
I shot (copied) all my images in NEF so I had the maximum amount of post processing flexibility. This has been, by far, the cheapest way (and one of the best) I've found to digitize old work. If you combine the quality of a Nikon sensor with the scary-sharp resolution of the 60mm Macro, you have a pretty good approximation of a $100K scanner . . . OK, I said approximation. But really, it's amazing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Going back to my old slides (literally thousands of images) is a project to big to take on :)I will keep telling myself, one day I will get out the slide projector and look at them (but never do it)....
Good idea though!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Willis..........
If you want to "do macro" keep one thing in mind; the "things" that you want to take pictures of, are going to be "close".......REAL close....to the end of the lens; the main problem in doing macro, (and there ARE tons of "problems"........is to get sufficient light onto the "subject".......(whatever the "subject" happens to be" ). Years ago, when I bought my very first "real good" 35mm camera, ( the famous old Canon F-1 (film camera), I bought a "marvelous" 55mm, f 3.5 macro lens for it; it's an incredible lens, sharp as a tack, able to reproduce clear up to "life size" just with the 25mm extension tube that's sold WITH the lens; I LOVED that nice sharp lens; the problem was though, I soon realized I was very seldom making very many,(read:NONE) photos with the thing, simply because there is hardly any WORKING DISTANCE between the "subject" and the lens barrel; if you are doing "copy" work, (anything perfectly flat, such as stamps, printed matter, you CAN do a decent job with it, but you STILL have to light the subject ! Even using a "ring light" it's insufficient WD on many subjects. ( Even at just "life size" ) Invariably, most beginners to doing macro want os "start out" by taking GIGANTIC photos of a fly's eye, (or his hairy feet); this is where problem no. 1 (of thousands) come up; busy things, like most insects, even reptiles, just aren't "into" having their pictures taken! ( and remember, the higher the magnification you go, the more light you need, (and the more heat the light makes, and the less "co-operative" your "subjects will become ! ( There is a GIGANTIC "trick" to catching "in flight" photos of even the slowest-moving of beetles, so if you desire to capture a nice, sharp photo of say, a bat's tongue, as he laps up nectar, all the while flapping his furry little wings............be prepared the spend a LONG , LONG time studying and doing macro ! ( and in the meantime, forget about anything less than about 105mm in focal length !) ( Been there, did that; it can be fun, but it isn't easy!)
And so far, we're just talking about doing "life size" here; ( making an image on the film (or the sensor) that's the same size as the subject; (You have a 1cm bumblebee, you get a 1 cm image of the bee; that's "macro" (life size)........but "just barely" ! If you want a 2 cm bee, you have to go to "2X"; and at this point, you can just about forget about your 50mm, or 60mm macro lens ! A 105mm macro (or as Nikon likes to call theirs, a "micro"....( same exact thing) can, and will do ANYTHING a 50 or 60MM macro will do, but it will ALSO do a lot of things the shorter lens WON"T do !
Why do big, serious camera companies (like Canon and Nikon) DO THIS to their "unsuspecting" customers ? That's "simple"; the shorter lens costs less, so about twice as many "unfamiliar" folks will buy them ! (then, after they "figure out" how "inappropriate" the shorter lens is for most things, ...........you can THEN sell them yet ANOTHER lens.......( the one you should have sold them in the first place !) Understand this........camera makers, (like "makers" of everything else ), are out to sell "units"; the more "units", the more $$$ you have coming in the door !
If you SERIOUSLY want to "do macro"........save your bucks (at least until you have really studied up on macro work ).........then INVEST in a great 200mm, dedicated macro lens; notice I didn't say a zoom lens that advertises it will do "macro"....(a few do, but again, JUST BARELY; macro work gets VERY demanding, very quickly; there are all manner of "problems" to deal with; (and a great 200mm dedicated macro lens is gonna "set you back some"....WAY back ! ( but you can DO all sorts of things that you CAN'T do, even with a 105mm macro.
If you start looking at macro work in some of the newer books published on the subject, you're gonna start seeing stuff done at 3X, 4X, clear up to 10X; believe me........photographing things at 10X is NOTHING like taking pictures of "normal things" ! ( and if you try it, you will very quickly SEE why I have ALWAYS "lusted" after a great 200mm macro lens, but have as of yet, failed to lay my hands on one.)
If you ever want to read about "doing macro", get on "half com" ( eBay's non-auction, new and used book website), and buy yourself any book on Macro that's written by John Shaw; (he's as good as they get !) Just remember, it gets VERY technical, Very quickly.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Good God! Will this thread ever be allowed to die in peace?!
Gitzo, thank you for sharing your knowledge on macro lenses. However, Willis already got himself a 105 macro...
...probably at the same time he posted this thread which is 3 years back!
Skimming through the past posts, I can count 8 times where this ancient thread had been resurrected.
Mods, honestly, how is this practice of reviving old threads helping anyone?
Casperweb made some VERY good suggestions on how to proceed with new topics that have already been covered in the forum before.
Unfortunately, it seems his suggestions have been largely left untouched.
I'm quoting him from 11 months back:
casperwb said:
Nikogood points,
" if someone searches for telephoto info they aren't going to find it in this "Macro" discussion."
I agree with you totally, what we have to come up with is a way to direct the discussion, or maybe switch over to the correct subject in the header.
your way of posting links is a nice way, and then maybe asking eveyone to continue the discussion over there.
or, maybe just open up the link and paste the question over there.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Gitzo said:
Willis..........Why do big, serious camera companies (like Canon and Nikon) DO THIS to their "unsuspecting" customers ? That's "simple"; the shorter lens costs less, so about twice as many "unfamiliar" folks will buy them ! (then, after they "figure out" how "inappropriate" the shorter lens is for most things, ...........you can THEN sell them yet ANOTHER lens.......( the one you should have sold them in the first place !) Understand this........camera makers, (like "makers" of everything else ), are out to sell "units"; the more "units", the more $$$ you have coming in the door !
I used to use a 55mm Micro Nikkor with a Nikon F in the 60s . I do not think it was designed for insect photography but for photographing flat artwork of about A4 size for AV presentation. Today people use a scanner or generate the original on a computer
the 55mm Mico was also used a lot for 1:1 slide copying
The Nikon F was one of the few SLRs with a100% view finder essential for AV presentation and the Micro Nikkor had minimal distortion
Posted 8 months ago # -
Seven, I understand and that rule does make sense if there is already an ongoing discussion and somebody goes on to post a parallel thread at the same time. However, keeping a 3 year old thread going just to avoid starting a new topic is, IMO, ridiculous.
For one thing, three year old information is not always relevant today (nor is 2 year old or 1 year old information for that matter btw). Jamming all the questions on a particular topic or issues of a certain camera in just one thread does not help finding them in the future. Even if the thread could be located, you'd have to go through countless pages just to find your answer.
Besides, seeing a 4 page long thread with almost 100 posts to it tends to discourage participation from new members who feel like they're jumping right in the middle of an old conversation. Also, how many times have you seen an old thread being resurrected by someone needing help with a certain issue only to have his question completely ignored and everyone answering OP's original question which could have been posted years back? I see it almost every time somebody posts in an old thread.
Posted 8 months ago # -
iris chrome said:
However, keeping a 3 year old thread going just to avoid starting a new topic is, IMO, ridiculous.I absolutely agree
but I am not a Mod
I am sure I am not the only one, who been severely reprimanded, in the past, for starting new threads
There is a thread on this very subject but it is closed . Any one brave enough to start a new one ? :)
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2106
or should we all go here
Posted 8 months ago # -
I've had a couple of my own threads closed as well in the past. However, now I know better than to start a new topic in NRF.
It's a pity really because instead of relying on the knowledge of current forum members, I find myself often searching for information elsewhere.
I don't know if I can say that I'm becoming more efficient that way because I have very little input from other members on how good the information I'm getting really is or if there are other ways of doing what I'm doing in better ways.
Posted 8 months ago # -
sevencrossing said:
There is a thread on this very subject but it is closed . Any one brave enough to start a new one ? :)Were you referring to this thread?
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=924or this one?
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=6038; )
Posted 8 months ago # -
Posted 8 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
