DSLRUsers.com

Hi Can this portrait lens be used effectivly as a macro lens?Is the defining thing of a macro lens only the focal legth(closeness)Feed back appreciated--jim

Hi Jim,
my understanding is that macro refers to at least 1:1 reproduction on the sensor , and the ability to focus with the lens extremely close to the subject . I don't have this lens but my 100m 2.8 macro is a very nice poitrait lense (lovely Boken) so don't see why it can't work the other way round, and tubes give it even more . My other macro however is capable of 5:1 so to me is 'more macro' if that's possible ....yet people talk about macro shots with a zoom lens ??? so I'm none the wiser
All I know is I like to be really close and get things really big to see the almost micro detail ...then I use multi shots merged to increase the DOF of the final shot ...and whatever lense that is capable of doing that is by my definition macro
DebT

No,this lens only does 0.3x - macros have a different lens which allows the extra close focus and increased magnification

Some people refer to 'Macro' as what is really probably defined as just a 'close up'. I have a 50mm lens thats branded as a 'Macro' lens for example, but its largest reproduction is like 1:4 (or 4:1?), not a real Macro (ie 1:1).

Thanks Tony , so the Tammy 90mm f2.8 would be a better option??
jim

Jim,

With regard to the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (very nice lens BTW) are you going to use this on DX or FF body. On a DX is may be long enough, on a FF may be not What distance do you need to be away from the subject

inmotion wrote:Thanks Tony , so the Tammy 90mm f2.8 would be a better option??
jim

Jim,

What are you wanting to acheive?

Both lenses are great, but they have different purposes in life.

The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 is absolutely my favourite lens, and IMHO it's the best lens Nikon make. Knife-edge sharp, the perfect focal length for portraiture on a DX body, fast, light, great bokeh ...

The Tammy 90mm is a great lens too, but in many different ways. Not quite as fast, optimised for close-up work, great focal length for DX portraiture ...

We have both here., and both get good regular use. Both are great all-round lenses, but when it comes to portraiture, or macro work, we choose the appropriate lens.

inmotion wrote:Hi Can this portrait lens be used effectivly as a macro lens?Is the defining thing of a macro lens only the focal legth(closeness)Feed back appreciated--jim

Another factor not mentioned before is depth of field. This becomes extremely critical with macros.
The nominal minimum aperture (therefore maximum depth of field) of the 105/2.8 Micro is f32. and I often see f57 reported by my camera. Compare this with the minimum aperture of the 85/1.4 of f16 You are getting a much narrower effective depth of field here. OK for stamps or coins, but less useful for bugs and flowers. Of course, using tubes will improve this some more.

Since I have the 105Micro AND the 85/1.4, I tried a little experiment
The setup can be seen in the first photo. The ruler is at about 45 Degrees to the plane of the camera. Lighting is from a single flash to camera right shooting through a softbox. In all cases, I focused manually on the leading edge of the ruler. Camera was sitting on a tripod, simply moved back and forward to accommodate the distance requirements.

This photo is using the 85 @ f16 at the minimum focusing distance


This is the 105 @f51 at minimum focusing distance:


This is the 85 @f16 with the full set of Kenko Macro Tubes attached:


This is the 105 @f45 with the distance backed off slightly to roughly match the 85's field of view
Note the difference in DOF


All photos are Out Of Camera with no changes except Sized (NOT cropped) to meet forum rules

Oh and in case you were wondering, this is the 85/1.4 with tubes @1.4 PS in all these, I am quoting the f-stop that the camera reports to me. The 105 is accurately reporting the effective f-stop. The 85 with tubes is not.
Also the ruler is graduated in Inches 1" = 2.54cm if you don't know the conversion.

And because I was wondering, this is the 105 @f57 with the full set of Kenko tubes attached:

Thanks all for the feed back I am interested in bugs-flowers but prob FX so i should look at the 105 and maybe look at the 85mm for my portrait work--cheers jim

inmotion wrote: I am interested in bugs-flowers but prob FX so i should look at the 105 and maybe look at the 85mm for my portrait work--cheers jim

Don't limit yourself to the 105. Play with them & think about them for what you want to shoot. You can shoot flowers with pretty much anything, but bugs have a habit of escaping, or attacking you. If you are further away, this can be less of an issue.
Your choices (in Nikon) are
60mm. ATJ uses one of these and gets some brilliant results.
105. What I have. I like it and use it for both short tele work as well as macro. (I am still saving up for my 70-200)
200. I think aim4x has one of these. You can be a lot further from your subject with this one

There are also some very worthy 3rd party offerings too.

Mr Darcy wrote:Your choices (in Nikon) are
60mm. ATJ uses one of these and gets some brilliant results.
105. What I have. I like it and use it for both short tele work as well as macro. (I am still saving up for my 70-200)
200. I think aim4x has one of these. You can be a lot further from your subject with this one

There are also some very worthy 3rd party offerings too.

Sorry, I wish I had one of the Micro-NIkkor AF 200mm f/4's but that is ATJ. I however own one of the third party offerings, the Sigma 180mm f/3.5 which is quite a nice lens, but if I was to buy again I would seriously consider the Tamron SP 180mm f/3.5 (for that longer focal length) or the 'classic' Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8.