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..
|