Which is the ideal Nikkor...

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Pa, Apr 5, 2007.

  1. ...for photographing tiny flowers like these:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Dave V

    Dave V Guest

    For a relatively small investment ($350US) a 60MM/2.8 Nikkor Micro is razor sharp, and is fantastic for flower shots. If you want to spend around $1K the 105/2.8vVR is not only razor sharp, but has beautiful bokeh as well. They can both be used as portrait lenses, and I have seen some wonderful shots using the 60mm for some distant landscape work that was incredibly detailed. I have them both, and I wouldn't part with either one.
     
  3. Thanks for your suggestion. I was thinking that the 60mm macro might be a good choice, but Bjørn Rørslett (our ex-resident lens guru) is not high on this one.

    I have an old Tamron 90mm MF macro which is very sharp, but I have a hard time getiing sharp hand-held images with it. And tripods are very awkward in the environment where these guys live.
     
  4. The 70-180 is supreme at this. Take a look at www.timernst.com and his flower photos. Most were taken with this lens.
     
  5. Dave V

    Dave V Guest

    I guess the main issue with the 60, is that you have to get really close for macro work, which doesn't work for living creatures that move when you get too close. The other thing, is that it doesn't have the same beautiful Bokeh as the 105 VR. Other than that, they are both very sharp and beautifully versatile lenses IMHO.
     
  6. Gale

    Gale

    978
    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Pa
    Those flowers are just so pretty and delicate. I think you captured them great.

    I know nothing from macro...lolol

    Just a personal liking. I think you composition is great for both shots.
    Shows them isolated and where they live. How does it get better than that:>))))
     
  7. The 60mm is a great lens. It almost shows too much detail, if that's possible for macro. You could look at that, or the sigma 105. Would a monopod be unreasonable to carry around?
     
  8. Thanks Larry. Looks like an excellent, but pricey, option.

    Perhaps I'd better just try using my tripod first.
     
  9. Thanks for the positive comments, Gale. Maybe I'm just too critical, but I'm looking for a bit more sharpness.

    Those shots were made with the 18-200VR with Canon 500D close-up lens.
     
  10. I have one; guess I just need to practice using it more.
     
  11. Hi Jim,

    I agree with Gale. Those images look great to me. I would not have guessed that you produced them with the 18-200VR. If you are seriously interested in a macro lens for floral work; how about the 105 micro, non-VR or Tamron 90mm macro lens? They are much less expensive than the new 105VR (I use this lens all the time) and just as sharp.
     
  12. Thanks Crystall. As I mentioned (post #3) I already have a Tamron 90mm macro, so the older non-VR Nikkor 105 would not be much of an improvement. The 105VR is probably the best option.

    Or probably better still, I should just use the Tamron 90 with a tripod or monopod.
     
  13. I agree - learn to use that tripod. Nothing will make a difference like that. The Tamron 90mm is about as sharp as macro lenses get, and that's saying something. Neither the 105VR nor the Nikkor 200/f4 Micro are very much sharper. Furthermore, even if you have them, you won't get their potential unless you use a tripod. This particularly true of the 200/f4.
     
  14. 332720

    332720 Guest

    I like my 60 very much. I find the 105 a little more comfortable. By that I mean I do not have to bend over so far when I am photographing flowers.
    You can probabbly get the 105 D at a good price now.
    Which ever one you get I bet you will have a great time with it.

    Michael
     
  15. 55/3.5 Micro ought to do the trick for that kind of flower arrangement, and will cost almost nothing.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.