View Single Post
Old 06-15-2007, 12:55 PM   #1 (permalink)
Amano
Insane
 
Starting with macro photography -- Questions about flash and lenses

Hi,

I just started to get into photography about a year ago when I bought a Nikon D70s, and I'm now interested in getting into macro photography. I have about $500 to spend on lenses and accessories, and I had a few questions after reading a bunch of stuff online.

Trying to choose between the Tokina 105mm macro vs the Nikkor 60mm micro lens (both are f2.8). Leaning towards the 60mm because I think I like getting up close and personal to what I'm shooting, and I'm not necessarily interested in shooting insects. Also, I'll probably be doing as much as I can without a support, so the 60mm will let me get away with a slightly slower exposure time. So here are my questions:

1) My primary concern right now is whether macro photography is doable without an external flash. I think I understand how macro photography requires extra light (dof can't be too small, which requires small aperture and flash is required to keep the exposure time down). But seeing as how external flashes are so expensive, I'm wondering if I can get away with not purchasing an additional external flash. Is it doable with good results? More importantly, is it doable without a huge amount of expertise in this area? What sort of pointers or things to keep in mind would you recommend if I can get by without an external flash? Would there be any benefit to the 105mm in terms of less of a need for an external flash?

2) Edit: Question removed -- no longer considering a sb-400. instead I'm considering as an alternative a sigma 50mm macro + sb-600....

I guess the bottom line is that I just want to be able to have fun and run around shooting decent photos without being bogged down with a bunch of equipment or setup time.

3) My last question is a bit separate from these macro photography questions. Before I had the $500 fall into my lap to spend on photo equipment, I was ready to buy the nikkor 50mm f1.8 prime, after reading such good reviews on its sharpness and its good value. But if I'm getting a 60mm f2.8 micro, I'm wondering if it still makes sense to get the 50mm. So my question is, aside from the slightly narrower depth of field, is there anything else that the 50mm f1.8 can do that a 60mm micro cannot? Now my decision on the macro lens takes priority (ie. I'm not getting the 105mm macro if the 60mm macro fits my needs, just so I can also get the 50mm f1.8.

Ok, well if you're still reading, thanks so much. I'm really interested in hearing what you guys have to say. Thanks in advance for all your help.

Last edited by Amano; 06-16-2007 at 11:09 AM..
Amano is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360