Nikon Macros - which lens gets the best?

[jeff5897]

Nikon has some very good macro lenses also.
you can download the original image to see their sharpness and quality.

AF 105mm Micro
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

AF 60mm Micro
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

AF-S 60mm Micro
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

AF-S 105mm Micro VR
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

[carylwithay]

Thank you all so much. I have the Nikkon 105 macro and now I have a 70-180 macro. I will keep trying.
Caryl

[jpdenk]

Originally Posted by poliwog

This is yet another instance of the lens mattering a lot less than the technique.

VERY true words. I have needle-sharp macros and close-ups taken with four different lenses, two Nikkors and two Sigmas. With macro/closeup stuff, technique is massively important if you want to squeeze out all the sharpness possible.

John

[iflynething]

Here are a couple I shot with the Nikon 105 f/2.8 G (the one before the VR)











Enjoy

~Michael~

[seanmacman]

Your second shot is splendid. Did you use a tripod?

[iflynething]

Originally Posted by seanmacman

Your second shot is splendid. Did you use a tripod?

Thanks. No tripod on this one. I was laying on the ground and had my girlfriend squirting water over the top and as it dripped down, I shot with flash right set to 1/64 power.

This is actually a composite of 3 images I manually put together. Wasn't too hard since I never moved the camera.

Thanks for your comment.

Good Macro shots CAN come from a Nikon body and lens!

~Michael~

[carylwithay]

Thank you for all your replies. Yes, I think good macros can be gotten with Nikons but I, personally , prefer the look from a Canon. He is one of mine with the 70-180 macro lens.
Caryl

[camillia]

Nikon for me, too...105mm macro lens...manual focus....extension tubes, TRIPOD...good light...

[AfricanButterflies]

Originally Posted by carylwithay

Every time I see a great macro of a bug, it is a Canon. Have any of you taken good macros with a Nikon? I would love to see a really sharp bug taken with a Nikon. I have the fanciest lenses for my D300 but cannot get anything like what the Canon owners get.
Caryl

Hi Caryl

Was just surfing the site and found this post.

I suspect the Canon shots you are referring to are made using their MP-E65 lens. There is truly nothing to beat this and I get really cross at Nikon for not making a design like this. I have played with one on a friend's Canon. Works a charm. Not easy to use, but far easier than a stereomicroscope which is all our local Nikon agent can suggest!

Here are a couple of macros taken with Nikon lenses:



This was with an old 28-105mm Nikkor kit zoom reversed onto my 105mm AF-S VR Micro Nikkor, with 75mm of extension tubes and a lot of focus stacking (something the MP-E65 pilots do a lot of - it presents serious depth of field challenges!)



This one was taken without tubes or a reversed lens.

But for those shots where you can see every ommatidium on a tiny fly's eye... I think Canon has the edge there.

Cheers

Steve

[Nikonfreak]

Probably the best macro in the Nikon lineup is the 200 f/4 Micro. Next in line in my opinion is the 60mm f/2.8 and finally the 105 f/2.8 Micro.

If you can find a copy of the older, now out of production, Nikon 70-180 micro ... that's an excellent lens as well... almost as highly sought after as any other. It's not quite a 1:1 lens but it's darn good.

Julio

[carylwithay]

Thanks Julio. i have the 70-180 and the 105 so I will probably not buy another macro. I shall just keep practicing
Caryl

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by carylwithay

Thanks Julio. i have the 70-180 and the 105 so I will probably not buy another macro. I shall just keep practicing
Caryl

Don't let go of that 70-180 Micro Nikkor. It's a highly sought after lens.

IMHO, the older version of the 105 Nikon was better than the current VR version. I have had both, and still have the VR version. I also like the Sigma 105 f/2.8 Macro. I would be very interested in checking out the 150 Sigma Macro.

Julio

[carylwithay]

My 105 is about 20 years old from film days. It works just fine but the best is the 70-180 with a ring flash.
Caryl

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by carylwithay

Every time I see a great macro of a bug, it is a Canon. Have any of you taken good macros with a Nikon? I would love to see a really sharp bug taken with a Nikon. I have the fanciest lenses for my D300 but cannot get anything like what the Canon owners get.
Caryl

I have owned both Nikon and Canon systems, and so far as macro/micro lenses are concerned, Canon has nothing on Nikon. My overall favorite macro lens ever was Nikon's 60mm. The 105 was also not bad.

[moxi1]

Hi Folks,

get real, it is not the lens and not the camera which makes the picture it is the person behind it!!!

It would be the same as asking an best-selling author which typewriter (word processor or computer) was used to write the story!
Surely some lenses and some cameras are to a degree better than others - but I would like to see any person who could say - and prove it - that one, or the other lens or amera takes better images.

cheers Moxi1

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by carylwithay

Thank you for all your replies. Yes, I think good macros can be gotten with Nikons but I, personally , prefer the look from a Canon. He is one of mine with the 70-180 macro lens.
Caryl

what a beauty almost hughable..

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by moxi1

Hi Folks,

get real, it is not the lens and not the camera which makes the picture it is the person behind it!!!

It would be the same as asking an best-selling author which typewriter (word processor or computer) was used to write the story!
Surely some lenses and some cameras are to a degree better than others - but I would like to see any person who could say - and prove it - that one, or the other lens or amera takes better images.

cheers Moxi1

I do always enjoy it when someone breaks out this "rule of thumb" and I can agree to a point... however, much like what makes one brand of piano more expensive than another is the quality of the craftsmanship which helps improve the sound quality of the instrument.

I believe we can agree that there is a reason we have professional grade optics, fast apertures and better sensors in some cameras than others.

Need proof? Create an exposure at ISO 2500 on a Nikon D1 with a variable aperture lens for me and a D3 with a 200 f/2 Nikkor and let's compare using the same photographer.

Better equipment does make things easier ... another example of that is fumbling through the menu settings on a D50 vs everything on separate buttons and dials on the D3.

One needs to have the knowledge up front... understandably... but there is a difference between better equipment and not so good equipment. If this weren't true, folks wouldn't be concerned with lens reviews or optical quality now would they?

That doesn't mean that one BRAND is better than another per se (C vs N). Each brand has strengths and weaknesses.

Julio

[godfather]

I have owned many macro lenses over the past 20 years including the Nikon 55 and 105 and also the Sigma 150. My two very favorite and sharpest are the 90 Vivitar 2.5 (Tokina) and the Nikon 200 f4 AFD. The 200 is expensive and large but produces the sharpest image and completely blows out the background thanks to the focal length. It also has a great field of view for macro work, and the best tripod collar.

[CharlesE]

I agree with man of the points being made here about quality of the lens and camera. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a professional does need to be able to get the job done and often doesn't have the time to find that perfect moment.

Photography is about the end product not how you get it. Given the time that most advanced photographers have that are not pro, they can shoot a leasure where a pro must get the image. I think that is one of the reasons some pros dont' seem to always be as good as the advanced hobby photographer.

Many people don't have the finances to support the big priced lenses and cameras so thye must learn to do the best with what they have. They too can make great images by overcoming their lack of the best equipment with technique.

In the days of film, the real difference was film quality and technique, today there is a huge difference in what could be done digitally 10 years ago with the D1 verses the D3X or the Canon lines.

The best way to improve your photography is to use a tripod or mono pod as well as learn the limits of your equipment so I still agree it is the eye behind the camera that makes the most difference and always has.

My image isn't really a Macro and wasn't taken with a Macro lens. I took it with a Nikon 200-400 f4 zoom at it's near focus range. I haven't tried extension tubes yet but I like the quality this distance and lens give me. I don't frighten the butterfly away.

I have used the old Sigma 70-300 zoom lens with the macro for a lot of great macro shots but that lens won't hold up to daily hard use because of construction materials in it. Still used with care, it produces great images. Work with what you have to get the best and you will improve greatly anything you are doing.

The equipment debate has gone on forever, many good photographers get discouraged because they think they can't ever do it without this or that because they don't have the equipment. Keep working and learning, your work will improve with what you have to work with.

The internet doesn't always show the real quality of an image either so that they can be judged well due to the loss of color and having to reduce a high resolution image down to a low res to display.
Charles

[NikonDarrel]

Originally Posted by RichNY

I recently picked up a Nikkor 200 f/4 and haven't found any lens to be sharper including my 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8. Wow- what an amazing piece of glass.

I have that lens and it is great!