Macro equipment?

[statebirdme]

Hey guys, I had a question regarding macro equipment. I have a Nikon D50, a 28mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.8, and a 80-200 f2.8. Considering the lenses that I have, if i were to purchase a macro lens, would it be better to purchase the Micro Nikon 105mm 2.8 or the 60mm micro? Also, what different effects would a larger focal length have on a macro photo compared to a smaller focal length? Lastly, are there any reasonably priced tripods you would suggest? Thanks!

[Trevor Ash]

When it comes to macro lenses you're going to be concerned with the focal length and the minimum focus distance. Assuming the same minimum focusing distance, a lens with a longer focal length will give you more magnification.

Considering your current lens arsenal, I think the 105 is a better choice. 105mm is a perfect focal length for portraits and is less obtrusive to people than your 2.8 zoom.

The difference between 50mm and 60mm is like half a footstep so with the exception of the faster aperture on your 50mm I'd treat them almost the same.

Other make or break features for macro photography include having an internal focusing lens so that the front element doesn't extend during focusing thus forcing you to reposition your tripod.

[statebirdme]

So if both lenses produce a 1:1 magnification and the Nikon 60mm lens has a minimum focusing distance of about 8 and 3/4 inches and the 105mm lens has a minimum focusing distance of a foot, then would the 105mm still produce a higher magnification? Thanks for the feedback.

[Trevor Ash]

Assuming they both produce a 1:1 magnification, that number is determined by using the lens at the longest focal length and closest focusing distance. So to answer your last question, the 105mm will produce an identical magnification as the 60mm but you'll be a little further back from the subject.

Is that clear?

It's been a while since I was into photography, nevermind macro photography. By the way, there are easy ways to increase the magnification of any lens with the only expense being loss of light (and thus longer shutter speeds).

[statebirdme]

Yeah, that helps alot. I really appreciate your feedback! One last question: Do you think it is worth paying about $750, nearly twice as much for the Nikon 105mm Micro lens compared to the $400 for the 60mm Nikon Micro? Your point pertaining to the fact that the 60mm lens is so close to my 50mm in magnification is quite valid. I am just trying to make sure that I make the right purchase before spending a fair amount of money on a lens. Thanks for your help so far!

[Loupey]

A lot depends on what you intend to shoot and where. Products in a studio (like jewelry) or nature-stuff outdoors.

I'll assume the latter from your bio. Like buying telephotos, one can usually not have a long enough lens out in the field. In your particular situation, consider that at the same magnification, you can stand further back with the 105mm than you can with the 60mm. At the same time, the 105mm will have a narrower angle-of-view meaning that you will have less "background" compared to the 60mm.

Both of these main differences would make the 105mm a winner - no questions. In fact, I would consider even longer (150mm, 180mm, or 200mm) to be even "better" for field work.

I'll leave you with this thought: if you have more working distance using a longer focal length lens, you have more working room to use flash, reflectors, tripod, etc. AND you won't have to enter the subject's private space.