Macro Lenses for fly photography

[flyman 0]

I am thinking about buying one of two Nikon macro lenses for macro fly photography. One is AF-S 105/2.8G VR and the other is a 60mm AF-S/2.8 VR. The 105mm is almost twice as much as the 60mm, is it really worth it? I had even thought about buying some other brands but they don't have the Vibration Resistance feature and since the lenses will probably also be used as a portraite lenses I think I would like to have the feature. Any ideas or suggestions?

[Ridleyffo 0]

I am thinking about buying one of two Nikon macro lenses for macro fly photography. One is AF-S 105/2.8G VR and the other is a 60mm AF-S/2.8 VR. The 105mm is almost twice as much as the 60mm, is it really worth it? I had even thought about buying some other brands but they don't have the Vibration Resistance feature and since the lenses will probably also be used as a portraite lenses I think I would like to have the feature. Any ideas or suggestions?

 

There are a few threads currently regarding SLRs but not macro in particular. I spoke to this guy at Ritz Camera yesterday, sorry I dont have specific model numbers, but the goto Nikon lens for macro was their 105mm ($1000)that they just finally changed to add the anti vibration method. Nikon is releasing two new macro lenses onof which is the 60mm ($529) you mentioned (i think) and the other is a new 85mm ($529) that really isnt even on the market. They Ritz guy said that I would need the 85mm because the 60mm didnt have the DX designation which is necessary for the SLRs. Im not a camera guy and have really just begun my research but be sure to clarify this DX issue.

 

Also from what I understand. the 85mm will let in more and a wider angle of light which will make it different than what we see with the naked eye as we view at 50mm. I truly dont understand this yet so any info you photo gurus can add OR CORRECT will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Peterjay 0]

IMHO you'd probably find the 105mm to be more versatile. If you already have a normal lens or a zoom that covers the normal range (50mm +-) you'd probably be throwing money away by going with the 60mm, especially if you mostly want it for fly photography. 60mm is a little on the short side for portraits. You want to keep a little room between you and your subject, and the longer focal length will help you do just that. For fly photography, you'll get your best results by using a tripod anyway, so VR becomes less of an issue on that score. VR helps, but you still have to hold the camera steady if you want good results - it's not a cure-all by any means. I wouldn't necessarily rule out third-party lenses, but you'd have do do your homework. Some of them are great, but some of them are real dogs. The only way to find out which is which is to do a lot of digging and find out what others are saying about them. BTW, for what it's worth: my 24/105mm zoom does most of what my 100mm macro does. Most of the time, I only use the macro when I want to minimize linear distortion. Decisions, decisions.

[flyman 0]

Thanks guys, I'm still digging around trying to read everything I can find on the subject.

[Al Beatty 0]

Hi flyman,

 

You've already gotten good advise from PeterJay and Ridleyffo. When I was faced with the same decision I settled on the Nikon 105VR for fly photography but just couldn't justify the cost. I ended up buying a Tamron 90mm f2.8 and love it AND it's also great for portrait work!

 

If you end up getting a VR lens, you'll want to turn off the VR function when you mount the camera on a tripod to shoot flies. Don't tell me why but that's what I learned from a book by Scott Kelby about macro photography. It has something to do with the VR mechanism fighting with the lack of motion the tripod brings to the picture-shooting process.

 

Good luck on your lens search and let us know what you decide to get. Take care & ...

 

Tight Lines - Gretchen & Al Beatty

www.btsflyfishing.com

[FKROW 0]

I have several Nikon macro lens in my collection most were purchased in the early 1990's when AF was initially introduced.

 

All of these older AF lens work fine on my D700 and D200 cameras.

 

I would suggest a used AF 60mm or 105mm, the new VR feature is for hand holding and would be turned off when mounted on a tripod.

 

KEH camera is very popular for good quality used camera lens purchases.

 

Regards,

FK

[WYKnot 0]

The minimum focus distance for the 60mm is short, you need to be within 6-7 inches to get 1:1 reproduction on your sensor. It can be done (one of my favorite macro lens), just know you won't have much room to play with (i.e, lighting, composition) - it really compresses your working space. The 105mm has a minimum focusing distance around 12 inches, almost twice that to the shorter lens. I see that Nikon recently released a 85mm/3.5 micro, a compromise (minus one stop of light) between the 60 and 105.

 

The close focus will become important if you plan to do some outdoor macro in addition to your flies; bugs don't sit still when you get too close.

[flyman 0]

Thanks for all the thoughtful and informative answers.

[Threshershark 0]

Tokina 100mm macro. Half the price of the Nikon with optics that are IMO at least as good.

 

VR is a useless technology at macro distances, so generally speaking you are paying for something you won't get a benefit from with the current Nikon.

 

Of course, 100mm macro lenses are well known for being great for portraits and VR would help out a little for hand-held portrait work if you plan to go that route.

 

Here's a shot taken hand held with the Tokina 100mm. Like I said, I'm not sure this little gem gives up anything in the quality department.

 

[WYKnot 0]

Nice Shot.

[Harold Ray 0]

Man, it would be hard to beat that picture for clarity and beauty!

 

Ray

[Harold Ray 0]

Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D Macro Lens for Nikon AF Digital and Film Cameras

Our Price: $399.95

Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 PRO D MACRO Lens at Adorama, The Photography People

Mfr. Part: ATXAF100PRODN SKU: TN100PNKAF

Free Shipping view details Product Rating

4.6 stars

(28 Ratings)

Write a ReviewRead 28 Reviews

[JSzymczyk 0]

VR is a useless technology at macro distances, so generally speaking you are paying for something you won't get a benefit from with the current Nikon.

 

:headbang: the voice of reason!

 

BUT WAIT- remember, you're talking to a bunch of fly fishermen. The industry tells us we're SUPPOSED to pay big $$ for crap we will get no benefit from... like $200 reels to catch 12" stocked trout.

[Harold Ray 0]

Here is the Nikon lens you all had mentioned from Adoroma. I am a camera neophyte. What is the difference between a 105 mm MACRO lens like this and a Nikon 18 mm-105 mm lens? Also, what in your opinion justifies the $500.00 difference between the Tonika and Nikon lens? Are the Nikon lens actually that much better, or is there a $500.00 premium in the name? The Tonika image, above, of the bee was spectacular in my opinion. I don't see how it could get much better than that, but the Nikon 105 MACRO also receives rave reviews, even at nearly $900.00.

 

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Autofocus Telephoto Lens

- with 5 Year U.S.A. WarrantyMfr. Part: 2160 SKU: NK10528AFVRU

Nikon 105 mm VR MACRO lens at Adorama

Our Price

 

$889.95

 

Product information from NikonProduct Rating

4.7 stars

(32 Ratings)

[JSzymczyk 0]

What is the difference between a 105 mm MACRO lens like this and a Nikon 18 mm-105 mm lens?

 

the 105mm Macro is a specialized tool- lets you get a "close" focus but still maintain some standoff distance. Also due to the focal length, it maintains a somewhat "normal" depth perception and field of view aspect. That is the reason they are sometimes called "portrait" lenses. The zoom lenses with macro focus capability are a compromise. They can do all kinds of things OK, but nothing particularly well, and each have a "sweet spot"... like a 6 wt rod, you can cast #24 tricos with it, but you lose some delicacy and finesse... and you can chuck heavy 1/0 bass flies with it too, but it's no fun really. Somewhere in there is a compromise. Same with the zoom lenses. Folks who are really serious about macro almost always use a 50mm fixed because it offers the best of close focus ability on small objects and low distortion. Also the zoom lenses only allow the closest focus distance on the widest (lowest) setting... you're not going to zoom totally in on something AND get real close to it too. There is always some sort of trade-off. Also a Zoom lens will have a maximum aperture available only what can be used on the max zoom setting... i.e. you'll be able to use more available light with a fixed, all other things being equal. In the end, it's all about what you do with the light. If you're primary interest is photographing small more-or-less fixed objects like flies, a fixed 50mm macro and a good knowledge of how to use reflectors and flashes will do more good than zoomy-zoom-zooms and bells and whitstles. Man, I've forgotten a whole lot about this stuff since it got too expensive and I sold off almost all my photography gear.

 

Physics doesn't change, and Lefty Kreh does a great job of explaining all this macro stuff in his "Guide to Outdoor Photography" It's a little dated, but I still have my copy and refer to it once in a while.