Need to buy a macro lens; which one is good?

[kamran]

I'm planning to buy a macro lens. My max budget would be around US$ 800.

Also, which one is better; Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8D or Sigma APO Macro 150 mm F2.8 EX DG HSM?

Thanks for input already.

[Manta]

Hi Kamram.

Do a search on any of the brands/focal lengths here and you'll come up with a stack of threads on just this subject. I've been trolling through those exact threads myself this morning as I'm considering the macro options as well.

(Looks like the Nikkor 105 is going to win but that's really only based on the fact that it's the only one I've actually had in m hands.)

[rokkstar]

There have been some absolutely fantastic results from the Sigma 105. I know a few people have it on this board and they can make it sing. I am planning on getting this one myself at some point - perhaps a christmas present from the good woman.

[sirhc55]

Sigma, Nikon, Tamron etc all make excellent macro lenses. I personally work on the premise that it is the person behind the camera that is the key factor. One of the world’s greatest macro shooters uses a P&S - go figure

[mR_CaESaR]

i like my sigma 150. I got mine from sigma4less for roughly about 700 or so. Great build, great optics, full time manual override, tripod ring, hood and case, check out dpreview, they have nothing but praise for the sigma

[swilk]

I'm planning to buy a macro lens. My max budget would be around US$ 800.

I have the Tamron 90mm Macro. It's the older version (not the DI) but it works fine for me. If I want a longer working distance I use a Canon 500D Close-up lens which screws onto my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8.

Steve

[DionM]

Consider the working length.

I often find my 100mm (Canon) too short for some thing. But then again, it is easy to handhold - whilst a longer/bigger macro may not be.

Hence why I am keeping my Canon and probably buying a 180 macro soon-ish

[kamran]

Thanks everyone who replied. I will try to test both the Nikkor and Sigma out at my local camera store and see which one feels better.

[fozzie]

kamran - you might aslo want to consider the Sigma APO MACRO 180mm F3.5 EX IF HSM:

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/le ... 180_35.htm

[redline]

hi kamran,
i was also planning to pick up a 105 nikkor but i ended up getting a 60mm mirco due to budget. however i founded i didn't like the compression look of the 60 on certain scenes of food. so i also brought some extention tubes which i used on some of my 105 primes. it comes down to what you need it for. do you have any primes?

[cameraguy21773]

I think the Sigma EX 150 f2.8 Macro is the best one available right now, and I have owned or used a number of good ones.

Macro
http://www.pbase.com/cameraguy21773/image/38385211

Close focus
http://www.pbase.com/cameraguy21773/image/38514461

Scenic
http://www.pbase.com/cameraguy21773/image/39973497

[sirhc55]

Mike - I was only looking at some of your shots yesterday on Pbase - very nice

[cameraguy21773]

Thanks Chris -
Looking forward to meeting you, and many of the others who post here so often, at the Sat mini-meet.

[kamran]

As I understand, the Sigma 150mm would produce more blurred out of focus backgrounds (because of a larger focal length and hence shallower DOF) than the Nikon 105mm, correct?

[big pix]

research and understand DOF then make a decision.........

[gstark]

As I understand, the Sigma 150mm would produce more blurred out of focus backgrounds (because of a larger focal length and hence shallower DOF) than the Nikon 105mm, correct?

Not necessarily, but probably. Your aperture setting has a great deal to do with this too, as does the physical separation between your subject and any background elements in the image.

Finally, there's also the Nikkor defocus lenses, that can purposely pull a background even further out of focus, although they're more for portraiture, IIRC.

[cameraguy21773]

Macro lenses, for practical purposes, all perform similarly when in macro mode or range (depending on lens design). Some, like other types of lenses, have what we consider "good" or "bad" bokeh. When they are used as normal prime lenses the bokeh really shines through and is either pleasant to you or it isn't. This Sigma 150 has what I think is a buttery smooth bokeh that rivals anything I've used in a long time. Check my links on a previous post, especially the green tree boa.

[mR_CaESaR]

here's one of my first test shots with the 150mm notice the nice bokeh, i love it, i gotta practice more though, still learning

probably could do with a resize though

[gstark]

Nice image, but with respect, I'm seeing a soft background, but no bokeh as such

Bokeh refers to the out of focus highlights in an image, and perhaps you (and others) are misunderstanding the meaning of the term, as there are no OOF highlights here.

Typically these might be lights in the background of the image that will be rendered as OOF circles of confusion, and it's the form that these take, and how they're affected by the lens characteristics (shape of the aperture blades, aperture used by the photographer, etc) that determines the bokeh that you'll see.

In this case, all that I suspect that we're seeing is just the background that's rendered out of focus due to the focal length in use and the physical separation between the subject and that backgfround.

[cameraguy21773]

I've always believed this:

Bokeh is a Japanese word - the transliteration of a Japanese word for "blur" - describing the subjective aesthetic quality of out-of-focus areas of an image projected by a camera lens.

I interpret it to mean, and I think many do, the blurred background in our images. Some, like you, take it to mean the out-of-focus points of light or highlights in an image.

I'm not sure which is precisely right and I certainly don't want to start a bokeh war.

[mR_CaESaR]

Nice image, but with respect, I'm seeing a soft background, but no bokeh as such

Bokeh refers to the out of focus highlights in an image, and perhaps you (and others) are misunderstanding the meaning of the term, as there are no OOF highlights here.

Typically these might be lights in the background of the image that will be rendered as OOF circles of confusion, and it's the form that these take, and how they're affected by the lens characteristics (shape of the aperture blades, aperture used by the photographer, etc) that determines the bokeh that you'll see.

In this case, all that I suspect that we're seeing is just the background that's rendered out of focus due to the focal length in use and the physical separation between the subject and that backgfround.

ic, guess we learn something new everyday.

I always thought that bokeh just referred to how smooth the OOF background was, so how would i actually go and test the 'bokeh' stop the lens down a bit more? say f8.0?

[gstark]

I'm not sure which is precisely right and I certainly don't want to start a bokeh war.

Mike,

Good decision.

I've only been doing doing photohgraphy for around 32 years, so I'm still just a beginner, but I've only ever seen it referred to as the out of focus highlights in an image.

Even Ken Rockwell and Luminous landscape seem to think it relates to the OoF points of light, so if I'm wrong - always a possibility - I'm in good company.

[DaveB]

Sorry Gary, I have to say that the term bokeh refers to the OOF areas of the image. Sure, the OOF highlights are the area that attracts most interest, but that does not mean that bokeh only refers to them.
Have a look at this page for some more background.

A quote from the Luminous Landscape article you linked to:

The Japanese apparently refer to the quality of the out-of-focus image as "boke".

Seems fairly straight-forward to me.

But it's a subtle distinction, and one we shouldn't expend too much angst on...

[gstark]

I always thought that bokeh just referred to how smooth the OOF background was, so how would i actually go and test the 'bokeh' stop the lens down a bit more? say f8.0?

That particular subject (that you shot) wouldn't be all that suitable for a bokeh test.

Try a shot, at night, with maybe a street lamp (or three) some way off in the background, but shooting a subject fairly close to where your camera is. Keep the aperture open rather than closed (f4, 5.6, 8 would be better than f16 or 22, as a guide) and make sure that both your subject, and the background lights (forming points of light) are within your frame.

Or find a busy-ish road, but don't do the usual trails of light time exposure. Instead, focus on a somewhat nearby oncoming vehicle, but ensure that there are also oncoming vehicles closer and/or further away than your subject vehicle, and use a short shutter speed coupled with a relatively open aperture. If the vehicles are moving, you'll want a shutter speed of at least 1/125., but if you can catch them at a set of lights, a slower speed will work.

You may need a higher ISO because you don't really want to have the vehicles' motion evident in these images; that will only detract from the test.

A lens with a slightly longer focal length may also be useful for this test, as that can help emphasise this phenomenon.

[gstark]

A quote from the Luminous Landscape article you linked to:

The Japanese apparently refer to the quality of the out-of-focus image as "boke".

Seems fairly straight-forward to me.

Ahhh ... but I'm not Japanese.

The term is derived from the Japanese language, but I neither claim to know its original meaning in that language, nor that that original meaning, if it's as you have quoted, was ever taken as the exact English meaning.

Rather, it's a concept, and if you look more closely at that article, you'll see that in the examples (#2 is particularly good for this) they're pointing out how the highlights are rendered. Triangular, in the case of example #2.

But it's a subtle distinction, and one we shouldn't expend too much angst on...

I would agree with this too.

[DaveB]

if you look more closely at that article, you'll see that in the examples (#2 is particularly good for this) they're pointing out how the highlights are rendered. Triangular, in the case of example #2.

As I said, the highlights are the areas where issues with the bokeh become apparent. Or rather, point sources are the areas (e.g. "darklights" such as OOF branch silhouettes). Actually, overall it's just an issue with how detail is rendered OOF.
The experiments in that article concentrate on the highlights, but if you read the words carefully you'll find it uses phrases such as "Boke, the quality of the out-of-focus image, is determined by[...]" (no mention of "Japanese" there ).

I had not read Ken's article before you linked to it, but a quote from it:

Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.

[...]

Bokeh describes the appearance or "feel" of out-of-focus backgrounds and foregrounds.

Images are made up of "points of light". "Highlights" are just one form!


To recap, highlights are places where issues with the bokeh are most-commonly apparent. That does not mean that bokeh only refers to the rendering of highlights.

It might not be worth a lot of angst, but I am a pedant!

[Glen]

Geez, I wouldn't want to see how many posts you guys would put up if you did want to start a boke war

[DaveB]

[kamran]

This thread had deviated way toooooo much from it's original topic of discussion! My question wasn't about the 'quality' of blur but rather the 'amount' of blur.

Anyway, another question; someone told me that the Nikkor produces sharper results (better per pixel sharpness) as compared to the Sigma. Is there any truth in this?

[sirhc55]

This thread had deviated way toooooo much from it's original topic of discussion! My question wasn't about the 'quality' of blur but rather the 'amount' of blur.

Anyway, another question; someone told me that the Nikkor produces sharper results (better per pixel sharpness) as compared to the Sigma. Is there any truth in this?

My answer would be no - but I am a Sigma user. But I must also add that over the years I have used all of the Nikon macro’s including the 200mm medical and the 28mm PC.

[rookie2]

it is trulyw enlightening to sit back and learn from you all.
I have just dipped my toes into macro last couple of weeks (with nothing worthy of posting yet) by investing in extension tubes to go with my kit lens and 50mm 1.4.
I nearly jumped in and bought a 105 mm but now understand the need to get the basics right through trial and error before adding to my lens collection (and overdraft!!)

Even tho a rookie in this whole new world, your forum discussions are entertaining, informative and best of all...cautionary. the more I read and absorb the less inclined I am to hand over my hard earned on another lens at thisearly stage.

Actually I must be doing pretty good job of this macro stuff - nearly all my pics so far are 100% bokeh and OOF!!

thanks for the free lessons that I cant find in any of the numerous mags and books I've invested in!!
cheers
rookie2

[Alpha_7]

rookie, don't feel like you can't share you photo's even at this early stage. I'm a newbie too, and once I got brave enough to post my shots, even crap ones, the feedback started coming in, and atleast I think I've taken it on board and slowly my photo's are improving.. or atleast the intent is there Not trying to rush you either, but when your ready, post some pics, I'm sure you'll learn a lot from the other members, there is a great depth of talent and experience in all sorts of styles and types of photography here.

[rookie2]

thanks craig
does it matter if I post some old photos first - taken with my Sony DcV1 while in SE Asia or is this for posting only from D70 snaps?

who do you use for your web host - i have a couple of photos on flickr (free) but am not doing many downloads as I am still on dial up.
I aim to have broadband by end of Jan and then post more when everything is a lot quicker.
thanks again
R2

[blacknstormy]

Rookie - go for it!!! I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing, but am having a ball doing it anyway... and I think I'm learning along the way

And as for the macro question - I've got the Nikon 105, and it is heaven on a stick!! It is amazing what kind of shots I've been able to get since I got it from Birddog, and is the best money I've spent to date (besides getting the D70 of course).

Best thing to do is go and try them out before you buy (I didn't, but it would probably be a good idea)... but I think I would have gone with the 105 just the same.

Welcome to the forum
Rel