Amano

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.

Konichiwaneko

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


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.


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.


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.

__________________

cadre

I did and still do macro photography without external lights. I'd suggest buying a tripod and just using natural light because you can save money and it's much easier to use. You may consider buying a longer macro lens if you are using natural light because if you have to get close to the subject you will sometimes end up creating a shadow.

However, if you end up buying an external flash, definately get a remote cord (then you will still want a tripod) because a) shooting with on camera flash looks boring and b) if you have to get close to the subject some external flashes will not be able to get to the right angle and still remain on camera. Also, learn how to use it because there's a lot you can do with an external flash unit.

To answer your last question, both are great lenses but you don't need one of each. I love the 60mm but I would just suggest reading up on them and seeing which seems to meet your needs best. I have a 50mm Sigma macro lens which is amazing (except for the autofocus) and was cheaper than the Nikon alternatives. Normally, I'd say Nikon is the best option but if you have a limited budget other brands may be something to look into.

__________________
My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.

skibum

I shoot macro occasionally with an old Sigma 90mm. I shoot handheld, almost always use only natural light, and have to manual focus and guess exposure (lens is full manual, doesn't talk to the camera). As long as you have a steady hand, keep in mind angles and how best to make the light work for you it is completely doable without external flashes and reflectors. Last time I posted macro people were amazed they were all handheld and natural light.

Amano

Thanks so far for the responses. After reading your replies and reading up a bit more about macro photography, I'm torn between either a Sigma 50mm +SB-600, or a longer macro lens maybe the sigma 70mm or tamron 90mm, or maybe even the original idea for the tokina 100mm. What's wrong with the Sigma 50mm autofocus? Is it just slow, or are there other problems?

I already have a tripod, so that's not a problem. But I wonder, some people I've talked to recommend multiple SB-600 or a ring flash so you can avoid unisightly shadows. At this time anything more than a single SB-600 is out of my budget, so I may just forego the light and see what I can do with natural light. Although, a speedlight is nice to have for other purposes aside from macro.... hmm..

Konichiwaneko

Maybe it's good to know what everyone macro's. I tend to not too, but Animals and Insects benifit from lighting because of location and their skin and chitin has that extra pop when an external light is involved.

Flower and Fauna some people can get wonderful results with natural lighting, possibly with some stock stuff also like coins and blah.

__________________

Chamaeleontidae

__________________
"Reality is just a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs."
Robin Williams.

cadre

Mainly the Sigma 50mm has a slower autofocus than Nikon lenses. It also will go back and forth trying to decide what to focus on sometimes. For macro, you shouldn't be using autofocus anyways though so I think it's a great option. As far as having a longer one goes, it depends on what you will be shooting and how close you want to be. When I'm as close as I can go with the Sigma 50mm I'm only a couple millimeters away from the subject. With my Nikkor 105mm micro though, I am still a good distance away. If it doesn't matter to you how close you get to your subject think about what length you would like for shooting other things, because with macro lenses you can still shoot everything else. For instance, the 105 is better for portraits.

As far as lights go, I agree that if you can afford it you might as well buy an external flash because you will use it for a variety of things. Try looking at used SB 800s, I use an older one with a remote cord and it works perfectly for shooting macro as well as just about anything else you want to shoot. Used equipment will save you a good deal of money so I would check out used lenses as well.

I also suggest you try to stay away from using on camera flash as your main light. Whether you're using a ring flash unit or the built in unit doesn't matter because light coming from the direction you're shooting often creates boring photos. Or at least, it will hold you back from creating beautiful photos. This is because it usually doesn't create any shadows which gives photos a flat look.

Good luck and let us see the results!

__________________
My life is one of those 'you had to be there' jokes.

Amano

Thanks everyone for all the feedback. I'm going to spring for an sb-600 and still undecided on which focal length for the macro -- either the sigma 70, tamron90, or tokina 100. Heard nothing but great things about all three. Leaning towards the 100 though it's effective focal length (with crop factor) lies just outside traditional portrait lens. Probably doesn't matter though if it's by that little.

I'll be sure to post any good shots I am lucky enough to take!

Thanks again

Zuiun

Here's a quick suggestion for the lighting problem if you're REALLY tight on money after buying your lens:

Lens Reflector

Basically, this is a reflector that fits around the end of your lens and bounces light back at your subject. It's not a perfect solution, and a flash would be better, but this works great if you've got some natural backlighting.