Best Semi Macro Lens for CR

[Anjin San]

Yes…I know I’m probably overthinking this…but as a recovering engineer overthinking things is what I do.

We re headed to CR soon with Dennis Valverde and the two long lenses re set…the 600PF and TC when necessary and the 180-600 for flexibility. I don’t do much macro so no true macro lens in my kit…and after monkeying around testing closeups at home I’ve got 2 choices which are basically the same at 0.38-0.39x. So..either the 24-120 pr 100-400 are the choices there…and rethinking my original idea of the longer one. The 100-400 would only be used for closeups, don’t imagine it will see much use otherwise…and if I take it then I need the 24-70/f4 as well just in case…or I could take the smaller, lighter, and a stop faster 24-120 and leave those two behind. I have to emit…and after looking at Steve’s CR bag video again I’m leaning towards the 24-120. OTOH…the 24-120 is weakest although not weak at 120 so the 100-400 is a little better optically.

Thoughts? Obviously the shorter lens will be closer to the subject at MFD and it’s a stop faster…but is distance that likely to be an issue?

 

[TurtleCat]

You might consider adding closeup adapters. Hoya has a nice set of different powers that are quite good. Canon’s 250D and 500D are very good. Raynox also has some very good ones. I don’t think they come in sizes to accommodate your telephotos without step down adapters but they would fit your 24-70 or 24-120 just fine. It gets you much closer without spending much money and takes less space.

 

[IngeKJ]

The 24-120 is 0.38x at a very close working distance. Its easier to be 0.38x at 1m with the 100-400 to not spook frogs, butterflies and so on. You will miss shots you could have gotten with the 100-400 if you take the 24-120

 

[BillW]

More working distance is very useful with skittish subjects. And potentially dangerous ones (snakes). I’d take the Z 100-400 for this role. It’s the lens I now use for butterflies, dragonflies and frogs at home. But I’d also take a Z 24-120 or Z 24-70 for scenics.

I was in Costa Rica in 2018 on the Osa Peninsula with Dennis as our local guide. He’s terrific. I was shooting with a D500, Df and D7200. For close ups I used the Nikon 70-180 macro lens and the 300 mm PF lens. I liked the better working distance of the 300 mm PF for all but the tiniest subjects.

 

[joe43]

When I was in CR, my two most used lenses were my 500mm f5.6 pf and my 300mm f4 pf on Nikon DSLRs. For macro or near macro I use the 300mm f4 pf as it is very sharp and has a short minimum focus distance. I added an extension tube to it for shooting poison frogs, etc. It got a lot of use for hummingbirds, butterflies, dragonflies, etc.

Make sure you understand the MFDs for the 100-400mm S lens. Each focal length has a different MFD. The MFD range is about 2.5 ft to 3.2 ft. This could work for you. The 70-200mm S has a shorter MFD.

 

[Jerry Watson]

Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S

100mm zoom position: 2.46 ft (0.75m) 135mm zoom position: 2.56 ft (0.78m) 200mm zoom position: 2.63 ft (0.8m) 300mm zoom position: 2.86 ft (0.87m) 400mm zoom position: 3.22 ft (0.98m)

 

[Jerry Watson]

I was there with Dennis in April-May of this year. I bought the Z!05 before I went. It worked great. It is on sell for $850 right now from Nikon.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Outlier suggestion - cause it will work for so many other things as well. Plena. Plena.

Close focus is 2.69 feet. Max Repo is .2, but you will have lots of pixels and beautiful micro contrast rendering.

If you need approval for the spendings, tells the Mrs. that the Hooligans approved it.

 

[jeffnles1]

Really depends on what you want to do. The below image was shot with a Nikon D7200 and Sigma 150-600. I know, different camera and lens but the point is at the longer focal lengths, the 600mm zooms can make a passable close focus lens. If you're not into true macro and don't want to invest in macro lenses, the 180-600 may suffice for your needs. Also, you have the benefit of not lugging additional lenses through the airport, onto Taxi's and around the lodge where you will be staying.

I would advise you to use the equipment you have at hand for a couple weeks around your house and capture butterflies, frogs, lizards (if they live around you), insects on flowers, etc. See if the tele zoom will meet your needs.

This photo is straight out of camera, no crop no light / color adjustments. Just sized down to fit the forum page.

Hope this helps.
Jeff

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ButlerKid]

Having been to CR twice, I urge you to consider working distance. Frogs and especially the poisonous snakes are much better photographed a ways away from them! I used a 105mm macro......and wished for a 180mm.

I found very few scenic shots I really wanted that the phone could not capture for me.

 

[Anjin San]

Thanks all…guess I will stick with the 100-400…the longer working distance recommendations for CR are a persuasive argument. I’ve got extension tubes that I will take just in case…but with 0.38x with the 100-400 and 45MP plenty of room there for cropping although the 24-120 would be the same there. But you’re right…venomous snakes at 3 feet are better than 1 foot…having had many encounters with cottonmouths back in my college days cruising timber for the summer. We wore chaps like cowboys do to stay safe nd the 3 of us were struck numerous times over the summer…when you cruise timber you’re walking through the woods but must go on a compass line regardless of trail or brambles or whatever.

I will stick in the 24-70 if I have space…but yeah, the iPhone 15 Pro Max does 48MP RAW if you shoot at 1x and still 12MP otherwise.

i expect that 60-70% of my shots there will be with the 600PF and most of the remainder with the 180-600…but OTOH might just stick with the 600 and 100-400 and save a little weight…but the 180-600 is pretty new and hasn’t been out much so there’s that…but then not having been out much could suggest getting a bit more field work with it at home first since new gear on an important trip is usually to almost always a bad idea.

I will just overthink things a little more before heading off.

 

[Anjin San]

Outlier suggestion - cause it will work for so many other things as well. Plena. Plena.

Close focus is 2.69 feet. Max Repo is .2, but you will have lots of pixels and beautiful micro contrast rendering.

If you need approval for the spendings, tells the Mrs. that the Hooligans approved it.

Thanks…I don’t need approval though as we are well enough off that we don’t really think much about that. the Plena seems very nice…but it’s big and heavy..and isn’t a focal length I really have much use for as I don’t do portraits. Probably 80%of my shots (at least) are with telephotos.

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Thanks…I don’t need approval though as we are well enough off that we don’t really think much about that. the Plena seems very nice…but it’s big and heavy..and isn’t a focal length I really have much use for as I don’t do portraits. Probably 80%of my shots (at least) are with telephotos.

There are many people now using the Plena for portraits. It's also a great travel lens for events, food, and for me I have used it in museums where there is space like Porsche. It's so much more than a portrait lens and the SOOC results are just outstanding.

 

[Anjin San]

There are many people now using the Plena for portraits. It's also a great travel lens for events, food, and for me I have used it in museums where there is space like Porsche. It's so much more than a portrait lens and the SOOC results are just outstanding.

Yeah…I've seen excellent reports on it but don't shoot portraits at all and for my travel needs the single focal length and weight make it not a really good travel lens. If I could convince my bride to be a Sherpa (which would be right up there with me winning the Presidency in a couple months)…then I could have her carry it but it would still mostly be unused on travel for me due to flexibility lack.

 

[bleirer]

When you read a spec about maximum magnification of a zoom, I think those are usually at the longest focal length. Yes the mfd changes but the focal length change overrides it.

 

[Woodpecker]

Thoughts? Obviously the shorter lens will be closer to the subject at MFD and it’s a stop faster…but is distance that likely to be an issue?

You might want to take a look in this other post regarding your question.
Although not being a true macro lens the 100-400 could be the best choice - and not even the second choice against something like the Z MC 105 -, simply because we still don't have a proper Z macro lens with longer focal length like the AF 200 D Micro or even a macro zoom like the old AF 70-180 D Micro in earlier days.
I own the Z 24-120 and the Z MC105 and whenever I decide to do closeup / macro I take the 24-120 off and replace it with the 105 and the difference is well worth it.
On the other hand, from 100mm onwards the 100-400 is better than the 24-120 in terms of resolution and you have the additional flexibility in the zoom range in case you can't move and have to get the lens to do the positioning for you or you need to keep your distance because you deal with a subject that is capable to escape and you don't wnat to scare it off.

 

[Anjin San]

You might want to take a look in this other post regarding your question.
Although not being a true macro lens the 100-400 could be the best choice - and not even the second choice against something like the Z MC 105 -, simply because we still don't have a proper Z macro lens with longer focal length like the AF 200 D Micro or even a macro zoom like the old AF 70-180 D Micro in earlier days.
I own the Z 24-120 and the Z MC105 and whenever I decide to do closeup / macro I take the 24-120 off and replace it with the 105 and the difference is well worth it.
On the other hand, from 100mm onwards the 100-400 is better than the 24-120 in terms of resolution and you have the additional flexibility in the zoom range in case you can't move and have to get the lens to do the positioning for you or you need to keep your distance because you deal with a subject that is capable to escape and you don't wnat to scare it off.

You’re right…I had looked at that before. If I did a lot of closeup then sure, a dedicated macro lens is the way to go as its optical design is done so that it is really good close even if 5hat reduces acuity at longer distances. But I don’t do all that much, the closeups in Car or frogs and snakes are probably the first ones I’ve done in 5-6 years…it just isn’t a priority for me…hence the better is the enemy of good enough idea I always believe in pushes me towards the non macro but close focusing idea. I would not be surprised if another 5 years went by before I did closeup again. Given the I’m not buying a dedicated macro lens…and the greater me to snake distance that I had not fully considered the 100-400 is the choice for me.

 

[Calson]

Consider the size of a frog and at a distance of 2 feet from the camera and what focal length and minimum focus distance is needed. Best S lens at this time is the 70-200mm f/2.8. Not the end of the world if you cannot take photos of macro subjects. When shooting from a boat some "macro" subjects like the Jesus Lizard I used a 80-400mm lens and it worked quite well.

More of a consideration is being able to trigger one or two off the camera speedlights. I carried far more gear to Costa Rica to handle the wide range of subjects and situations than for any other wildlife trip anywhere.

 

[Anjin San]

Consider the size of a frog and at a distance of 2 feet from the camera and what focal length and minimum focus distance is needed. Best S lens at this time is the 70-200mm f/2.8. Not the end of the world if you cannot take photos of macro subjects. When shooting from a boat some "macro" subjects like the Jesus Lizard I used a 80-400mm lens and it worked quite well.

More of a consideration is being able to trigger one or two off the camera speedlights. I carried far more gear to Costa Rica to handle the wide range of subjects and situations than for any other wildlife trip anywhere.

I actually sold my 70-200 because it never got used. 200 is just too short for most wildlife and while 2.8 is nice to have it isn’t enough to overcome the reach limitation…at least for me here in FL. It is an excellent lens to be sure…but sitting on the shelf it did me no good. True…not the end of the world and I don’t shoot much closeup anyway…but if you’re going to CR then frogs, lizards, and snakes are part of the trip. Ignoring them is like ignoring the cats in Africa…why go if you’re going to do that. Of course…with the current storm heading to the Gulf and another one behind it…looks like the flight down will skip between the two and back behind the second one…but at least CR is far enough south that impact should be minimal.

 

[Roy]

Yes…I know I’m probably overthinking this…but as a recovering engineer overthinking things is what I do.

We re headed to CR soon with Dennis Valverde and the two long lenses re set…the 600PF and TC when necessary and the 180-600 for flexibility. I don’t do much macro so no true macro lens in my kit…and after monkeying around testing closeups at home I’ve got 2 choices which are basically the same at 0.38-0.39x. So..either the 24-120 pr 100-400 are the choices there…and rethinking my original idea of the longer one. The 100-400 would only be used for closeups, don’t imagine it will see much use otherwise…and if I take it then I need the 24-70/f4 as well just in case…or I could take the smaller, lighter, and a stop faster 24-120 and leave those two behind. I have to emit…and after looking at Steve’s CR bag video again I’m leaning towards the 24-120. OTOH…the 24-120 is weakest although not weak at 120 so the 100-400 is a little better optically.

Thoughts? Obviously the shorter lens will be closer to the subject at MFD and it’s a stop faster…but is distance that likely to be an issue?

There are extension tubes that will get you much closer.
Although you will lose some light ...

 

[Anjin San]

There are extension tubes that will get you much closer.
Although you will lose some light ...

I tried my extension tubes with the 100-400 for a few shots but Dennis loaned me a 105 macro and it was a far better solution…and since I had much more fun than I thought I would that day I'm thinking about getting the 105 myself.

 

[Roy]

I tried my extension tubes with the 100-400 for a few shots but Dennis loaned me a 105 macro and it was a far better solution…and since I had much more fun than I thought I would that day I'm thinking about getting the 105 myself.

I often suggest extension tubes as a cheap macro alternative.
The next better option is a macro lens and maybe even one with extension tubes ..