Taking your macro Work Seriously

paulr

We all love our Nikon lenses, However if you want to look at alternatives when specialising in Macro Work, what would you consider.
Here is my list.

Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125mm F2.5 SL
Carl Zeiss Planar T 100mm F2
Schneider PC TS 90mm F4.5
Sigma APO EX DG OS HSM 180mm
Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm F4 Bellows Lens

What would you use?

Msmoto

Golly, I would like anyone to look at this using the 85mm f/1.8G Nikkor with some extension tubes.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/17003854490/sizes/o/

I like the reflection of the eyelash in the eyeball....An SB-800 into a softbox was used for lighting, but this was a stranger in a park, single exposure.

tcole1983

Depends on what you are doing. You can be serious about certain types of macro shots without any of the stuff you mentioned. Are you doing products? Flowers? Insects? Do you need 1:1 or even more magnification? Just depends on what you want to achieve.

ThomasHorton

In the field, I like the stand-off of the Sigma 180.

For "studio" work, extension tubes and bellows work well.

spraynpray

Interesting list @paulr. Do you have a good reason for selecting those lenses - like are they particularly highly rated?

I use the 60mm f2.8D on my D7100 for macro with fair success but I would also like to own the 200mm micro for my D750 and available light work. I am jealous of canon's 5:1 macro lens, wish Nikon did one. My business partner is trying a reversed 50 prime a la Thomas Shahan. If it works well, I'll have a go at that method.

paulr

Spraynpray, The Voigtlander is reputed as been the best macro lens ever made, You see them on Ebay sometimes but very rare . Read Michael Erlewine's report on this lens, he rates it highly.
https://www.astrologysoftware.com/download/cmp_lenses.pdf
Carl Zeiss 100 macro also gets glowing results although only 1-2 magnification
Schneider 90 TS/PC I recommend this lens from personal use due to the lack of fall out on the edges of the image
Sigma 180 AP0 Lens If you look at the construction of 19 Elements in 14 groups, thats a lot of Glass plus it has other goodies which suit the macro photographer also.

Nikon 105 bellows lens is for bellows users only, where the standard 1-1 is normal, macro with bellows and bellows extensions , really starts to get interesting and nearly close to micro photography, but thats a totally different ball game.

Msmoto

Used with extension tubes, this might be super:
Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135

tcole1983

I am just curious what makes any one of those setups "serious" while just using any one of the Nikon macro lenses that can produce 1:1 is not. Are you want ing to achieve greater than 1:1? I admit I handhold almost all my macro shots and rarely use external lighting, but curious what the serious distinction is entailing.

WestEndFoto

You can just attach an extension tube if you are motivated for greater than 1:1.

To me "serious" will involve lighting, as that is often the biggest challenge if you are stopping down to improve DOF.

paulr

If you consider that macro photography starts at 1-1 then anything with greater magnification starts to involve other aspects of macro photography, Example, Lighting, Tripods, Stacking software and of course lenses. Bellows equipment can magnify to 1-23 so depending how serious you want take your macro work, equipment does have a bearing. Subject matter also has great relevance on what type of equipment is necessary to achieve the required image, But regardless of equipment it is the skill of the photographer who finally produces the perfect image.

Msmoto

Maybe we have an issue of semantics....and that your question, Paul, can be limited to greater than 1:1 mag or less than 1:1, the setup which works best for each situation.

My experience is that as I approach 1:1, and greater magnification, the problems technically increase exponentially, lighting, physical distance, DOF, and that focus stacking may be the way to go at higher mags. I do so little of this, I really know nothing about it, however.

spraynpray

You can just attach an extension tube if you are motivated for greater than 1:1.

To me "serious" will involve lighting, as that is often the biggest challenge if you are stopping down to improve DOF.

Indeed. A badly lit super sharp macro is less appealing than a well lit slightly less sharp shot IMHO. If you look at Thomas Shahan's shots, they are beautifully lit.

tcole1983

To me it just depends on how close you are wanting. Lots of times I don't want just the pollen grains on the flowers. To me that doesn't do much good. I want the whole flower or a decent portion of it. Lots of times I want a good portion of the bug and not just its eyes or whatever. Just because it isn't ultra magnified doesn't mean it isn't macro...just a different type of macro. One of the museums we went to had a Nikon small world or something like that display. They were all shots with super high magnification microscopes or even other types of magnification devices (I don't remember off the top of my head).

Most of my macro isn't super close up magnification, but to show something and detail of it.

spraynpray

Less than 1:1 is called close-up photography which is what yours is @tcole1983. I think macro is 1:1 - 5:1 and after that you start to get towards photomicrography. Your images above are also available light which is fine, but it limits ones opportunities when fast moving objects are the subject.

tcole1983

I couldn't tell you which ones are 1:1 (if any) I just take pictures :-)

And yes all with available light. I don't have patience for fast moving skittish things. If I ever find the money I would like to invest in more lightning stuff.