What makes a lense suitable for macro shots?

VorpalBunny

Member
Nov 21, 2009
54
0
61
As a hobbyist, I've only gained about 8 months of experience with my D90. I went with the 18-105mm VR kit lens and also got the 70-300mm VR lens. However, I have a friend who has a "macro" lens. That got me thinking, what exactly is a macro lens? Generally speaking, what technical properties do they have over a zoom?

Although the Nikon lens guide is pretty good, I still feel like I don't know the difference between, say a prime and a macro lens.

Help anyone?
 
Last edited:

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
The traditional definition of "macro" is that it can focus close enough to reach 1:1 magnification, where the object is the same size on the sensor as it is in front of the lens.

The flexible advertisers' definition of "macro" is just a lens that focuses really close.
 

VorpalBunny

Member
Nov 21, 2009
54
0
61
ah ha, so magnification is the crucial attribute. This helps. Thanks.

According to Nikon, my 18-105mm has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1/5. So if I'm reading that right, the subject appears 1/5th of actual size on the sensor. But a macro lens will reproduce the subject 1/1 on the sensor thereby allowing greater detail to show through? Is that right? Wow I already feel like a more informed and confident shopper.

I wonder how big a difference in the quality of shot though. I'm intrigued.
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
ah ha, so magnification is the crucial attribute. This helps. Thanks.

According to Nikon, my 18-105mm has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1/5. So if I'm reading that right, the subject appears 1/5th of actual size on the sensor. But a macro lens will reproduce the subject 1/1 on the sensor thereby allowing greater detail to show through? Is that right? Wow I already feel like a more informed and confident shopper.

yes

QUOTE=VorpalBunny said:
I wonder how big a difference in the quality of shot though. I'm intrigued.

well, more pixels on target means more target detail captured.
 

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
ah ha, so magnification is the crucial attribute. This helps. Thanks.

According to Nikon, my 18-105mm has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1/5. So if I'm reading that right, the subject appears 1/5th of actual size on the sensor. But a macro lens will reproduce the subject 1/1 on the sensor thereby allowing greater detail to show through? Is that right? Wow I already feel like a more informed and confident shopper.

I wonder how big a difference in the quality of shot though. I'm intrigued.

Let's use an example. Let's say you wanted to take a picture of a dime (which is close in size to your camera's sensor).

So if you were using a true 1:1 macro lens, you could focus close enough so that the dime is reproduced at a 1:1 ratio. Your camera's sensor is about 15mm tall, and a dime has a diameter of 17mm. This means that at 1:1, you would be able to fill the entire viewfinder with the dime.

At 1:5, the time would only take up a small part of the image frame. 1:5 means that the lens only focuses close enough to get the subject to 1:5 life size, so the dime would fill up around 3-4mm of your camera's sensor.
 

Maximus96

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
5,388
1
0
macro lenses are fun. i had the canon 100mm macro for a while. they also make for fantastic portrait lenses as well, especially the 100mm. however, you can experiment with macro by buying a set of extension tubes to use with your existing lenses. a 50mm prime makes for good macro with tubes. kenko makes a good set for about $150. with the 100mm and full set of tubes, you can get 2:1 magnification! but then you lose auto focus...

you can buy even cheaper extension tubes on ebay. but those have no electrical contact so you can't change the aperture at will and also lose auto focus. the only way to get around it to mount the lens, change the f number, and press the dof-preview button while dismounting the lens so the aperture blades remains in place. this get annoying real quick.

or a even cheaper way is to reverse mount a lens onto another. when i first got my old xsi i tried it with the 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm 1.8. i forget which mounts to which but you mount one lens to the camera, and flip the other around to mount in front of the first lens. they sell these special reverse rings on ebay. again you will lose auto focus and aperture manipulation but its macro on the cheap.
 

VorpalBunny

Member
Nov 21, 2009
54
0
61
Let's use an example. Let's say you wanted to take a picture of a dime (which is close in size to your camera's sensor).

So if you were using a true 1:1 macro lens, you could focus close enough so that the dime is reproduced at a 1:1 ratio. Your camera's sensor is about 15mm tall, and a dime has a diameter of 17mm. This means that at 1:1, you would be able to fill the entire viewfinder with the dime.

At 1:5, the time would only take up a small part of the image frame. 1:5 means that the lens only focuses close enough to get the subject to 1:5 life size, so the dime would fill up around 3-4mm of your camera's sensor.


Wow, that's actually an interesting experiment. I think I'll try that with what two lenses I have. What should also be interesting is figuring out the minimum focal length I can achieve with my lenses. I mean, physically, how far do I have to set the front of the lens away from the subject. That will make for an important decision when it comes to macro lens specs.

I will admit that all this talk has gotten me interested in shopping around for a macro lens. And, yes, 40Hands, those bugs look cool. When I do get a macro lens, that's one use I would have planned. There's a whole world of little stuff and fine detail that goes largely unnoticed.

I wonder if you can put a teleconverter on a macro lens and whether or not it would have any problems. I know doing so would stop down your aperture by two (depending on the converter).

(so many questions... thanks everyone so far for the information and help)
 

Maximus96

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 2000
5,388
1
0
the lens should have the minimum focus distance either marked on the body or you can tell by looking at the focus distance window. or you can just find out by trial and error, keep moving back until you camera/lens can achieve a lock on focus.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
the lens should have the minimum focus distance either marked on the body or you can tell by looking at the focus distance window. or you can just find out by trial and error, keep moving back until you camera/lens can achieve a lock on focus.

for still objects and high magnifications a macro rail is a great accessory.
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
some helpful definitions:
"minimum focusing distance" is the distance from the film/sensor plane to the subject.
"minimum working distance" is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject.
 

996GT2

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2005
5,212
0
76
Wow, that's actually an interesting experiment. I think I'll try that with what two lenses I have. What should also be interesting is figuring out the minimum focal length I can achieve with my lenses. I mean, physically, how far do I have to set the front of the lens away from the subject. That will make for an important decision when it comes to macro lens specs.

I will admit that all this talk has gotten me interested in shopping around for a macro lens. And, yes, 40Hands, those bugs look cool. When I do get a macro lens, that's one use I would have planned. There's a whole world of little stuff and fine detail that goes largely unnoticed.

I wonder if you can put a teleconverter on a macro lens and whether or not it would have any problems. I know doing so would stop down your aperture by two (depending on the converter).

(so many questions... thanks everyone so far for the information and help)

If you are looking for a decent amount of working distance, get a macro lens with ultrasonic (USM for Canon, SWM for Nikon) focusing.

The third party 1:1 macro lenses (like the Tamron SP 90mm or Sigma 105mm) are great lenses, but they extend upon focusing. This greatly reduces the actual working distance you have. With USM lenses that don't extend when focusing, you get about an inch or two of extra working distance (for a 100mm macro lens).

Here's what I mean. You can see that while the Tamron and Sigma lenses are much smaller than the Canon 100mm USM, they extend much longer when focused to 1:1. They're still excellent lenses, but their working distance is about 1-2 inches shorter.

http://media.the-digital-picture.co...gma-Tamron-Macro-Lens-Extended-Comparison.jpg
 
Last edited:

Shimmishim

Elite Member
Feb 19, 2001
7,504
0
76
A cool trick I recently learned was taking a 50mm prime lens and flipping it so you hold the front element against the body and the back element as the front. It doubles as a macro and you can get some really close up shots! To adjust the aperture, you do the trick where you set the aperture you want and then hold the DOF button then unmount the lens. :) try it!
 

deanx0r

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
890
20
76
There are plenty of lenses marketed as macro lenses out there like the Nikkor 60mm F2.8, the 105mm VR, the 200mm F4, and you also have 3rd party options like the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 150mm.

The thing is, a macro lens is probably the LAST thing you will probably need to shoot macro.

Your primary concern will be light (more precisely, the lack of light), because shooting macro will yield a very shallow depth of field, you will be forced to shoot at very small apertures in order to get your subject in focus.

I would highly recommend getting a small flash like the SB600. Pair it with a small light stand and a diffuser box. It can also be triggered wireless by your D90, making it very suitable for macro work.

You can increase the macro capability of any lens with diopters or extension tubes:

-Diopters act like magnifying glasses that you attach as filters, you can also stack them to the detriment of optics. Nikon used to make some really good diopters but they really hard to fine now, and even more expensive. A good 3rd party solution is the Raynox DCR-250. It cost ~$55 and can also be used on many other device such as your p&s or digicam.

-Extension tubes are relatively inexpensive, can be stacked and have zero optics (meaning you don't degrade quality by using them). Look up for Kenko extension tubes as they provides AF and metering function on Nikon bodies. The Nikon extension tubes don't provide the proper electric contacts for modern lenses (AF-D or AF-S).

Buy the Raynox DCR-250, then maybe the Kenko extension tubes, and you'll realize you don't need a dedicated macro lens to reach 1:1 magnification. Don't forget your flash, then down the run, get a dedicated macro lens like the Sigma 150mm to couple with the diopters and tubes you already have for even greater magnification.
 

deanx0r

Senior member
Oct 1, 2002
890
20
76
A cool trick I recently learned was taking a 50mm prime lens and flipping it so you hold the front element against the body and the back element as the front. It doubles as a macro and you can get some really close up shots! To adjust the aperture, you do the trick where you set the aperture you want and then hold the DOF button then unmount the lens. :) try it!

A friend of mine tried to get me to do this. I thought it was really impractical, but a really great way to ruin your photo equipment! It doesn't get more ghetto than that I am afraid!
 

twistedlogic

Senior member
Feb 4, 2008
606
0
0
A friend of mine tried to get me to do this. I thought it was really impractical, but a really great way to ruin your photo equipment! It doesn't get more ghetto than that I am afraid!

Just out of curiosity, how does reverse mounting a lens ruin your equipment?
I'd figure messing with extension tubes would be an even bigger risk than reverse mounting, as your allowing dust from the tubes into your sensor and/or into your lens.

As for mounting the lens, hitting DOF, and then reverse mounting it, isn't that only possible with Canon? With a Nikon (D90) the OP just needs any older non-G lenses.
 

VorpalBunny

Member
Nov 21, 2009
54
0
61
The thing is, a macro lens is probably the LAST thing you will probably need to shoot macro.

...

You can increase the macro capability of any lens with diopters or extension tubes:

I really like what I see in the specs and sample shots for the Nikon 105mm VR. On one hand I could spend $200 for the extension tubes mentioned and get some magnification, but on the other hand I could give up a small bag of cash to get my first prime lens.

Thing is, the 105mm is great for more than just macro. It's great for portraits too. I guess the actual focal length is 155mm with the sensor conversion and all. So the versatility really hits a home run.

I was told by a friend the number of elements in a lens has something to do with quality too. Like the fewer the number of elements, the better. The 105mm is listed at 14 elements in 12 groups. I'm not sure what that means or even how to compare that with other "high quality" lens. However, after looking at the sample shots, I like what I see.

I guess I'm torn. But in the end, I might just follow that advice and start with extension tubes because I can reuse those with the macro lens later.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I use my 105VR for tons of stuff, not just macro. It's very sharp, even wide open, edge-to-edge; great for off-center composition.
 

twistedlogic

Senior member
Feb 4, 2008
606
0
0
For less than the price of an extension tube, you should be able to find a 55/3.5 AI. It'll meter on your D300 and it gets down to 1:2 (1:1 with PK-13).

This is from another thread, I think you posted on wrong one?!?
*Edit: on second thought maybe not, as this OP has a D90 not the D300

I was going to suggest the 55 micro to but wasn't sure if they where pre-AI or not.

Here are some samples.

I was looking into buying one of these when I was interested in getting a macro lens. This lens a truly a bargain for as cheap as they are.
 
Last edited:

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
Other post was intended for the other thread :)

They made AI 55/3.5's and 2.8's. They'll work on a D90, just won't have metering. I used to use mine on a D70.

It's a bargain and it's solid. I wouldn't call it just a so-so lens.

More samples.

20061027051828_necklace08_full.jpg


These are mostly 55/3.5, with a couple 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, and 180/2.8 on extension mixed in (they're noted where I remembered) -
http://www.blindmike.com/index.php?x=browse&category=2&pagenum=1
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Yep, I've used the older manual focus 55mm f/3.5 and f/2.8 lenses. Both excellent optics, and they usually run $100 or less.