Macro lense Question for Nikon D70

[Erin]

Hi all! I'm new to this board but it looks like I may have met a few of you at other sites or listservers.

I know next to nothing about photography. I've always had a point and shoot.

I bought a Nikon D70 recently becuase I love digital cameras but I'm frustrated by the slow shutter speed.

I need some advice on a good macro lens for the D70 for aquatic photography. The kit came with the Nikkor 18-70. I bought a Nikkor 70-300mm F4-5.6D as a macro lens. I have about 9 days to decide whether to keep this lens.

Anyone have any suggestions as to whether I should keep this lens or whether there is a better lens for shooting aquaria?

Thanks for the help.

Erin

[benny]

Hi Erin,

In my experience, Macro lenses in the range of 90, 100, 105 mm with an aperture of F2.8 are more suitable for aquatic photography. Of course, if you are looking at larger sized subjects, a 50 or 65 mm macro lens may perform better.

Cheers,

[Erin]

Thanks for the help. The second lense I bought is the one I'm thinking about returning. It is a 70-300 mm lense with an aperture of F4-5.6D. The 70-300mm seems to fit within your description. Does the aperture of F4-5.6 versus the F2.8 make a large difference.

I apologize if this appears to be a silly question. I really am that inexperienced.

[benny]

Yes. The larger the aperture, the more light you get in dimmer conditions. Makes a WHOLE world of difference. In addition, the minimum focusing distance on the 70-300 may not be to your liking. It's too far away.

Cheers,

[JerseyJay]

Erin,

I definitely wouldn't treat your 70-300mm lens as your "primary" macro lens. If this is THE only reason (macro photography) you got this lens, I would give it back and save few more $$ for decent macro lens like Nikon 105mm f/2.8 or look into cheaper quality alternatives like Tamron 90mm or Sigma.

Some call Ken Rockwell a closed minded NIKON fan, but some of his stuff is interesting. Please read about your lens, here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm

[Erin]

LOL. Now that I have been down to the shop and taken a look at the lenses you guys recommended I understand just how ridicules my questions were. The extra lense I bought is a telephoto lense not a macro lense.

I looked at the 105 F2.8 AF Micro Nikkor lense which has a focus distance of one foot and I looked at the Sigma 105 mm f2.8 EX.

There is a large price difference between the two but I'm guessing the nikkor lense is worth paying for.

Thanks for your help.

[hir0]

erin, if you wanted to keep the lens you have for reasons other than macro, you could always use it with a nikon 5t or 6t or a canon 500d closeup diopter for semi-closeups. this is very good if you are using it for larger things like butterflies or whatever. if you want 1:1 reproduction, you need to go with a dedicated macro lens. after all the research i'd done, i narrowed my selection down to the tamron 90mm di macro lens. it is an awesome performer, but it does take some practice. i decided against the shorter focal lengths (50-60mm) because the working distance is very short. i mean, a few inches from the lens to the subject. the 180mm options seem very popular, as it gives you nice distance from more skittish insects. if you are photographing documents or whatever, the 50-60mm macros are a slightly sharper.
it is good to have a larger aperture capability(lower f number) for low light situations. however for macro, i found it necessary to use very small apertures (f18-f22) to maintain DOF, and this requires the use of a good flash. if i were you i would save up for quality glass.

[Erin]

Thanks for the help.

I kept the 70-300mm and picked up the Nikkor 105 mm F2.8D for a macro lense.

Now all I need to do is learn how to use it. Good thing there's classes.

[hir0]

good lens. at the magnification that lens will give you, you will have extremely shallow dof. you will need to stop down considerably to maintain dof (if you want to) meaning you will either need extremely good lighting. i use flash(sb-800) for all macro work, it allows me to stop down between f16-f22 with a decent shutter speeds from 1/160 - 1/250 of a sec.

[benny]

I bought a Nikon D70 recently becuase I love digital cameras but I'm frustrated by the slow shutter speed.

I need some advice on a good macro lens for the D70 for aquatic photography.

Hi Erin,

The macro lens is a good investment and I'm sure you'll find it suitable for aquatic photography. However, until you add a SB800/600, you will continue to be frustrated by slow shutter speed.

The D70 is capable of wireless flash options and that allows you to put the flash above the tank and get very natural lighting and relatively higher shutter speeds.

Hope to see some of your pictures soon!

Cheers,

[Erin]

Thanks for the advice. Looks like I'm going to have to wait a few months on the flash. I'm about tapped out for now. :(

You should be able to take some decent pics w/out flash if your lighting is good. I know w/my 100mm macro (Canon) on my saltwater tank that has about 80 watts over a 10g footprint, I can take great macro shots w/out flash (cant use flash in a totally covered hooded tank :) ) But, yes, you and me both are waiting for a flash :)

[JerseyJay]

Here is great topic on dpreview about macro lenses for Nikon D70 or any Nikon DSLR.

Check this insane shot with Sigma 105 f/2.8 EX DG Macro ($339)

[images/thumbs/Jay Luto_pedals.jpg]http://www.kennethjames.com/gallery2/main.php/download/30-1/pedals.jpg

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=11684603

[trigger]

I just borrowed the new sigma 70-300 APO Macro super II lens from the local fotography store. Can't wait to try it out tomorrow.

Peter

[hir0]

well, that lens is capable of 1:2 at like 300mm so be prepared to either use a tripod or use very high shutter speeds. you should try and borrow a dedicated 1:1 macro lens to get a true feel of what macro is.

[trigger]

1:2.5 @ 300 actually. And yeah, I do need a tripod. I'll post some results later on.

Peter

[trigger]

All by hand, withou tripod, so sharpness is a bit of an issue...

[images/thumbs/trigger_DSC_1626.jpg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/triggerfish/Diversen/DSC_1626.jpg

[images/thumbs/trigger_DSC_1629.jpg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/triggerfish/Diversen/DSC_1629.jpg

[images/thumbs/trigger_DSC_1615.jpg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/triggerfish/Diversen/DSC_1615.jpg

Peter

[trigger]

[images/thumbs/trigger_DSC_1613.jpg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v227/triggerfish/Diversen/DSC_1613.jpg

Peter

[hir0]

you need to stop down to get more depth. i normally shoot @ f16-f22 for macro, and often times still don't have enough depth.

i swear pbase links are a hassle.

[trigger]

Thanks, did not think about the aperture :oops:

Peter

[Erin]

Jay, thank you for the link. It was interesting reading and made me feel like I made the right decision investing in the 105 mm Nikor lens.


I have 260 watts of light over my 55 gall tank. Not nearly the type of lighting that the admin has over his marine tank. I'm going to need that flash sooner than later.