Why should I use a Micro Lens?

[Naois]

Hello Everyone,

I've been taking pictures with my first D-SLR for a few months now and I found that I like to photograph all kinds of things, from far off subjects like the moon, to the inside parts of flowers. I was looking at getting a few prime lens for my camera and I have a few questions about the true value doing so.

I current own the following len:

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

I've been looking at the following lens for micro photography:

AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED

With my current lens set to 105mm, the biggest apeture I can use is 5.6, and it can't focus closer than 18 inches (I guess this measurement is from the camera body). I also have to use software to fix the very mild chormatic aberration.

If I do upgrade my lens, I will have the much better apeture of 2.8, and it can focus up to 12 inches (6 inches closer) as well as reduced or even eliminated cromatic aberration.

My questions is: Will this change really make a big difference for what I want to do? If so, how what difference will I notice? I took the following shot with my current setup:

http://bytecrafter.com/photos/stargazer_lily.jpg

Thank you,
-Naois

[Elmo]

The answer to your question is, Do you fee;l you need to get closer to the flower?

I have a 105 macro, but use it sparingly for flowers. Most of my flowers are shot with a 28-75 f:2.8 Tamron that offers limited macro (close focus) capability.

So the answer is do you need the features the lens will offer?

[Naois]

Originally Posted by Elmo

The answer to your question is; Do you feel you need to get closer to the flower? ... So the answer is do you need the features the lens will offer?

My questions is in part, what would the Micro lens actually offer me compared to the old one? Will it actually allow me to get closer to things, making them look bigger? (Like to look at the face of a bug?) Once I know what the actual difference is, I will be able to make a decision.

Thanks,
-Naois

[Elmo]

Now you have stated what you might want to do, Shoot bug eyes.

To do that I would suggest a macro plus a set of extension tubes or one of the super-macros like canons mpe

[RexK_Cozumel]

Focusing distance is usually measured from the front lens element or distance from the sensor. Not distance from the camera body. Anyways to answer your question getting a true macro lens (micro lens) will greatly improve the quality of the images you are getting but if you are not doing a lot of macro work the money would be better used somewhere else.

[PhotoNewt]

A few points...

A true macro lens offers the following advantages:

1. True macro magnification of 1:1, this allows the capture of subjects at life size. As Elmo said, if you add an extension tube the magnification should be even more.

2. Better quality as suggested by Rex. Macro lenses are designed for this task and have better chromatic and sperical aberration correction. The final image will be of higher quality.

3. Answering your question regarding subject to lens distance, the macro lens will allow you to focus closer than a non-macro lens by itself. You can add either a diopter filter or an extension tube to any non-macro lens allowing it to focus closer and so behave as a macro. This is usually a more economical way to achieve macro results.

4. The macro lenses usually have smaller apertures to allow for better macro work than regular lenses - most macro lenses are able to "stop down" to f/32 or smaller (see the note below).

5. Macro lenses can be used for general photography, these prime lenses usually produce exceptional performance when used for non-macro tasks - the 100mm f/2.8 macros are excellent for portrait photography for example.


One last point, when working close to a subject the depth-of-field (DoF) decreases rapidly making it difficult to maintain the entire subject in focus. You should dial a smaller rather than a larger aperture in such situations to maximize your DoF.

[Naois]

Thank you for your responces. I think I'm going to start by adding a diopter filter to my existing lens to see what happens. If I find myself doing more and more macro work, than I'll think about the bigger investment.

Thanks,
-Naois

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by Naois

Thank you for your responces. I think I'm going to start by adding a diopter filter to my existing lens to see what happens. If I find myself doing more and more macro work, than I'll think about the bigger investment.

Thanks,
-Naois

Very good idea.

Many people here also use a set of very economical extension tubes available in ebay for around $20, you may want to do a search as there are some discussion threads with pictures for you to explore.

You can check the following thread and this other one about Macro techniques and equipment.

[navy.wife_2004]

I just spent $15 on extension tubes, rather than $800 on a macro lens. I'm loving them! They aren't the best, but they are my fix for my macro want. For now. In a year or two I might purchase that macro I've had my eyes on, but for now the $15 tubes will do fine! They're testy and hard to learn, but worth the $15 to hold me over.

Good luck.