65mm - 105mm macro?

[phishphorphun]

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.

Benny, In an earlier post you refered to the "larger sized subjects,...". Approximately what size are you referrng to. As you probably know, I mainly take shots of my African cichlids with the 50mm 1.8d. Since my subjects are usually at least 4" in length (usually larger) should I consider a 65mm macro, or go for the 90-105mm?

[benny]

If there is a space constrain behind you and you can't move back, the only way is to get a wider angle lens to get the whole subject in your frame. As such for larger subjects in a constrained space, a wider macro lens will work.

If you have no restriction for space, you can still use the 90/100/105 mm lens for up to 10 inches with a comfortable working distance.

What I was specifically refering to was 2 feet subjects in a 6 to 8 feet tank and a working distance of only 3 to 4 metres. In this case, the longer macro lenses may not give you a full body profile.

For your case, I would still recommend a 90 - 105 range. Wider macro lenses are always more challenging in terms of reflection, both direct and ambient.

Cheers,

[hir0]

i would also echo benny in suggesting one of the 90-105mm macro offerings. i use my 90mm tamron for fish as well as my general walk around lens. takes some really sharp headshots.

[phishphorphun]

Thanks guys. I just wanted to make sure you weren't talking about subjects 8" compared to smaller critters like 1". The plan was for my next lens to be a macro 90mm-105mm. You guys did well with suggesting the 50mm 1.8d for my first additional lens. I've been following all the threads discussing the Tamron, Sigma and Nikon macros. I have time to decide, just gathering as much info as I can before I make my decision.

Thanks again.

[hir0]

i did a lot of research before i bought my macro lens and this is the general concensus i found.
nikkor - excellent optics, build quality is good, bokeh is good.
tamron - excellent optics, build quality is good, bokeh is good
sigma - excellent optics, build quality very good, bokeh gave mixed reviews

i'm sure you'd be satisfied with any of these lenses. based on what i found, the tamron 90 di was for me. if you are interested in doing insect macro with skittish subjects like butterflies, i would also recommend you consider the sigma/tamron 180's or even the 200mm micro nikkor(now THAT is a lens!)

[phishphorphun]

Thanks for sharing your research results. Isn't it interesting how we normally find out that the price coincides with the quality. And usually, the number one reason from the representative of the less expensive product is..."we offer it for less because we're trying to increase our share of the market and our volume overwhelms the markup ratio". Not because it may be inferior. My rule of thumb has been quality first and price in the middle. I would probably go for the Tamrom based on your results.

[benny]

Bobby,

Check out the March 2005 issue of Practical Photography from UK if you can get hold of it.

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/5084/ppmar045xh.jpg

There's a 100 mm macro lens comparison for 7 brands, including Canon, Nikon, Sigma and Tamron. Might be useful for you.

http://img218.exs.cx/img218/4117/ppmar04a0ja.jpg

Cheers,

[phishphorphun]

I'll try to find it in my travels around here in the Mid-Atlantic. Thanks for the tip.

[Peligrin]

So, for me taking pics of my guppies, would I want the 105mm or the 60mm (I'm a Nikon snob)?

Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987)

NIkkor 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1988)

[benny]

I take pictures of my guppies with the 100 mm macro and the 180 mm macro.

Cheers,

[Ibn]

So, for me taking pics of my guppies, would I want the 105mm or the 60mm (I'm a Nikon snob)?

Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987)

NIkkor 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1988)

Given those two choices, I'd go for the Nikon 105mm macro. Quite a bit more versatile than the 60mm.

I have two macro lenses very close to those focal lengths: 55mm f/3.5 micro and the Tamron 90mm macro. The 55mm is tack sharp and the Tamron is just a hair off from it, but the working distance works really well on the 90mm instead. Due to this, I find myself using the Tamron more often than the Nikon lens.

[hir0]

i agree. especially since you already have a 50mm. 65mm isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.

[Peligrin]

I don't have a 50mm. I have the 18-70mm kit lens. Does that change your opinion, Hir0? :-D

[alanhill]

It's very much a question of taste and technique. I use my 60mm MicroNikkor for some general photography and intend to use it for aquarium photography when I shell out for a couple of Speedlites. It is the equivalent of the 90mm macro I use a lot with 35mm film.
For insects and such like I use a 150mm Sigma Macro - but it's too long for the way I work with aquatic subjects.

Alan