They all can be used with extension tubes to get to 1:1 life size or more. It's ultra-sharp at every distance, has no distortion, it's super-tough, half the barrel is the manual focus ring I use constantly, and it has plenty of working distance between me and my subject.Īll these get to half-life-sized (1:2) at the image sensor. Use it when you need to reframe moving macro subjects rapidly otherwise, get the 200mm f/4 AF-D instead.Ĭheck price. This is the world's only zoom true macro lens, but more expensive used than the 105 VR new. Good choice for macro, but still less working room than we'd like for the best perspective. VR is nice hand-held when used as a tele, but is of no help when shooting serious macro, which we do with strobes.ĥ2mm filters, 19.8 oz./562g, about $350 used (see How to Win at eBay). Good choice for macro, but twice the price of the 105mm AF-D to do the same thing. 60mm AF-D and 55mm AF comparisonĪll these lenses focus to directly to 1:1, meaning that the image on the sensor is the same size as the subject.įor DX cameras only. See also the Comparison sections of many of these reviews for far more details.Įxplicit Nikon 60mm G vs. Get the lens you really want, since unlike cameras, good lenses are always a great investment.Ĭlick each for its complete review. All of these are at least as sharp, and usually sharper than regular lenses, even at infinity. Here are the best macro lenses for both general and macro photography. For Nikon, a used manual-focus TC-200 for about $50 and any 105mm macro could be all you need. Hint: for great macro on a budget, use any 2x teleconverter with a 105mm or 100mm macro lens to give you a 200mm macro lens and let you stand farther away for the same magnification- but it will be much more difficult to compose and focus because you'll only be at about f/8 after adding the converter at most macro distances. These are so good technically that sharpness doesn't matter - but focal length does. Shoot wider, like at f/8, and nothing will be in focus, so again, whatever miniscule differences there may be at infinity won't matter. At f/32, diffraction makes them all the same. Therefore, these will all be indistinguishable from each other as far as sharpness for serious macro use is concerned. Regardless of how ultra-sharp or merely super-sharp any of these may be for general photography, because depth-of-field is nonexistent at real macro distances, lens sharpness isn't important because you'll be stopped down to f/32 anyway. With any 40mm to 60mm macro lens, by the time you get close enough for serious macro work, you're so close that you block your own light, annoy the subject, and the picture looks funny because of the unnatural perspective from being too darn close.įor instance, the Nikon 55mm f/2.8 (both auto and manual focus versions) is arguably the sharpest lens in photography, but it's a poor choice serious macro use because it's too short and you have to get uncomfortably close. ![]() Any half-decent macro lens is extraordinary for use as a normal or telephoto lens for general photography - but here I'm discussing which lenses are best for serious macro shooting.įor serious macro shooting, you need a much longer lens, at least 100mm and preferably 200mm, so that you can make close-up photos from at least a foot or two away. ![]() What?Īll of these macro lenses are super-sharp and free from distortion. ![]() These are all great macro lenses, but most of them aren't great for serious macro photography.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |