Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amano
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:
|
If you are shooting with a digital Nikon also, the 60mm becomes a 90mm, so you get close to the same original size as the Tokina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amano
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?
|
I would highly suggest considering a external flash unit if you are seriously getting in Macro photography. Not only does it create the light needed for the extra DOF required, but also create the catch light, and extra exposure needed to either remove the background or fill the subject for the background.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amano
2) If I do have to take the plunge for a external speedlight, would a SB-400 be adequate? If so, would I also need to get a remote cord so I can hold it off-camera? Or is using the flash on-camera adequate? If I need to use it off-camera to get proper exposure on my pictures, that would probably mean I'd need a tripod so I can properly focus, snap the picture and hold light all at the same time.
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.
|
I'm not as familiar with the Nikon system as Canon, but I would suggest considering the SB-800 or even possibly third party Ring Flash systems for your lens. Depending on what you shoot not only will you hold the flash, you may have to hold the subject, you may want to consider solutions like stroboframes and so forth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amano
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.
|
The 1.8 can take photos in much lower light than the Macro. If you don't think you will be taking Macro photography all the time, it might be a worthwhile investment just because it's nice having a very fast lens. It's almost a no brainer to have on the Canon system as the 50 1.8 is about $55~75 dollars...but if it takes a bite out of your budget you might want to consider other options.
Something neat you can do though is actually get the 50 1.8, and a couple of extension tubes (I'm assuming yet again) this will up the size ratio of the lens up to a macro level. It's not suggested over just having a macro lens itself, but it is possible just to buy one of the tubes and experiment.
Best of luck
Trent.